Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Skwim]

The discussion was about "order requires design" and all the sudden, it was shifted to some irrelevant arguments about Christian beliefs and Young earth creationists . Did anyone notice that we have been talking about a creation point at the big bang (about 14 billion years ago)? These specific Christian beliefs are totally irrelevant to the discussion.

As is the creationist belief about the origins of the universe and life irrelevant when it challenges evolution. Challenging evolution on origins is no different than challenging Christianity on human anatomy. Besides, who says the discussion can't shift from one topic to the next. Your OP said nothing about "order requires design" yet here you are not wanting to discuss your OP topic, but order and design.


.

 

[NoorNoor]

As is the creationist belief about the origins of the universe and life irrelevant when it challenges evolution. Challenging evolution on origins is no different than challenging Christianity on human anatomy. Besides, who says the discussion can't shift from one topic to the next. Your OP said nothing about "order requires design" yet here you are not wanting to discuss your OP topic, but order and design.


.

The discussion can shift and did shift multiple times, which is Ok but it shouldn't get out of track. when you see some one calling another immature because he can't place himself in my place to determine what I can or can't see and the other think that, this immaturity is a proof that shows how ridiculous the Christian concept is. Then people continue talking about "YEC" implying that this is where I stand. that creates a need for a clarification to get things back on track. I am not even a Christian (but Nonetheless, I do believe that Jesus PBUH is a true messenger of God) yet people claim they know what my beliefs are. I am talking about a creation point "14 billions" years ago and people imply I believe in creation "6000" years ago. I don't want to be part of any irrelevant exchange of ad hominem but when people put themselves in your place and speak on your behalf, then a clarification is required.

Can we just stick to point of discussion other than meaningless attack against a position maintained by a person? Ad hominem is an approach to get a discussion side tracked towards an attack on a person rather than addressing a specific discussion. It shows insecurity/lack of confidence of the attacker.

Its a fact that people's views are different. The intent is a discussion not an attack. Many don't understand that. After all, every one is entitled to his specific view.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If some one wants to discredit all Historical accounts and the beliefs of billions of theists today, then, at least he should provide evidence that those historical accounts are not true and provide evidence that """God doesn't exist""".

This has been debated before and again I claim that "Creation scientists add no new knowledge or discovery to mankind's pool of knowledge". We don't dismiss Newton's claims of gravity and planetary motion simply because he's creationist. That would be ridiculous. We do, however, dismiss claims of "Creation Scientists" because their claims are flawed.

The atheist idea that the existence of the creator/ first cause for our existence can be only accepted through some typical scientific tests, is ridiculous.

That is how the rationalist relates to the world. Asking us to relate to the world differently is like asking a cat to bark.

God' existence can be recognized through his influence as the a first cause at the creation point of our universe and through the order that is clearly manifested in our universe.

This teleological thinking, I utterly and wholly reject. It's actually repugnant to me.

"Order requires design, design requires intelligence"

Why do you believe this statement to be true?

 

[NoorNoor]

This has been debated before and again I claim that "Creation scientists add no new knowledge or discovery to mankind's pool of knowledge". We don't dismiss Newton's claims of gravity and planetary motion simply because he's creationist. That would be ridiculous. We do, however, dismiss claims of "Creation Scientists" because their claims are flawed.

the term "creation scientists" is very misleading. To be a scientist, he would be necessarily specialized in one acknowledged scientific field or another but in addition, he believes/advocates creationism. Meaning his speciality is not creationism. In that sense, a creation scientist is just a theist scientist like any other theist scientist.

You use the term "creation scientists" to ignore all contribution of "theist scientists" in essence, both are scientists who beleive in God. If you don't consider those creation scientists as scientists (if they don't have other speciality), then there is no point of discussing their contribution to science.

Yes, Newton is a creationist and a scientist with great contributions to science.

That is how the rationalist relates to the world. Asking us to relate to the world differently is like asking a cat to bark.

The belief that the invisible mysterious physical forces (such as magnetism, gravity, dark energy) exist, is totally rational because we can observe its influence. The beleif in God is also through the observations of his exerted influence. That influence is Not only creation/overall order in the universe but it's also manifested in different ways. For example. If you consider self-awareness, can it be artificially created? Would our collective knowledge/ science allow us to create a self-aware machine?

This teleological thinking, I utterly and wholly reject. It's actually repugnant to me

Your description of it as teleological doesn't provide any reason why you reject that "the order manifested in the world is an influence of intelligence."

If fact, science itself is based on pre-assumption/understanding of reason/order. If this understanding doesn't exist, then science wouldn't have a meaning. any scientific theory would emerge initially based on a pre-assumption of the existence of reason/order. Newton's apple always falls down perpendicular to the ground (order) because of an influence of a gravitational field (reason). If there is no prior sense that reason is required to manifest an order, then falling of the apple wouldn't have any significance.

Why do you believe this statement to be true?

Because we know for certain that design (artificial) requires intelligence and that design always manifests order. Design is not a product of a random process. The examples of design in our world is more complex/sophisticated than any man-made design. It requires intelligence not just mere chance.

Michio Kaku said "“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

Why do you think this view is not logical/ scientific?

 

[Sapiens]

the term "creation scientists" is very misleading. To be a scientist, he would be necessarily specialized in one acknowledged scientific field or another but in addition, he believes/advocates creationism. Meaning his speciality is not creationism. In that sense, a creation scientist is just a theist scientist like any other theist scientist.

You use the term "creation scientists" to ignore all contribution of "theist scientists" in essence, both are scientists who beleive in God. If you don't consider those creation scientists as scientists (if they don't have other speciality), then there is no point of discussing their contribution to science.

Yes, Newton is a creationist and a scientist with great contributions to science.



The belief that the invisible mysterious physical forces (such as magnetism, gravity, dark energy) exist, is totally rational because we can observe its influence. The beleif in God is also through the observations of his exerted influence. That influence is Not only creation/overall order in the universe but it's also manifested in different ways. For example. If you consider self-awareness, can it be artificially created? Would our collective knowledge/ science allow us to create a self-aware machine?


Your description of it as teleological doesn't provide any reason why you reject that "the order manifested in the world is an influence of intelligence."

If fact, science itself is based on pre-assumption/understanding of reason/order. If this understanding doesn't exist, then science wouldn't have a meaning. any scientific theory would emerge initially based on a pre-assumption of the existence of reason/order. Newton's apple always falls down perpendicular to the ground (order) because of an influence of a gravitational field (reason). If there is no prior sense that reason is required to manifest an order, then falling of the apple wouldn't have any significance.




Because we know for certain that design (artificial) requires intelligence and that design always manifests order. Design is not a product of a random process. The examples of design in our world is more complex/sophisticated than any man-made design. It requires intelligence not just mere chance.

Michio Kaku said "“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

Why do you think this view is not logical/ scientific?

Because you use similes and analogues that do not hold up. For example, you write, "The belief that the invisible mysterious physical forces (such as magnetism, gravity, dark energy) exist, is totally rational because we can observe its influence. The beleif in God is also through the observations of his exerted influence. That influence is Not only creation/overall order in the universe but it's also manifested in different ways. For example. If you consider self-awareness, can it be artificially created? Would our collective knowledge/ science allow us to create a self-aware machine? "

The physical forces such as magnetism and gravity are not mysterious and are completely predictable and consistent, dark energy is only theoretical at this stage, is not a physical force, but rather a hypothesis to explain the behavior of matter in the universe in terms of gravitation. It is not just a matter of, observing its influence, but of doing so always in exactly the same measure, that requires no belief, just measurements. Now, when it comes to gods, there is no inexplicable, constant and constant physical effect that can be pointed to as evidence of a god's actions. In fact, most of what is pointed to as evidence of gods is the classic argument from ignorance, e.g., "we don't know so that must be a god." There are lots of things that our collective knowledge/science can not create ... that is hardly evidence of a god, it is just evidence that we lack the knowledge and/or technology.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Meaning his speciality is not creationism. In that sense, a creation scientist is just a theist scientist like any other theist scientist.

No, a "creation scientist" is not "just a theist scientist". You believe that is what I am saying because my words are twisted in your mind. A "creation scientist" is that "scientist" (and I hate to use this word in this context) who seeks to disprove evolution for religious reasons and/or prove creationism. It's that simple. The definition I have provided for "creation scientist" are very, very clear. The fact that you don't agree with them is irrelevant. What is relevant is the message that I have conveyed. You're not debating that message. You force your meaning of the word "creation scientist" into my message. As a result, you completely fail to hear what I am saying.

Whatever other rebuttal I had in mind, Saipiens has addressed very well. He will also address these well and better than I; as he is obviously much more educated, experienced and aware of the facts than I am.

In fact, he has addressed what Kaiko meant by "intelligence" and you still continue to juxtapose your meaning into Kaiko's statements; thus you do not hear Kaiko's message; you hear what you want to hear.

You're not debating or discussing. You're playing word games.

As far as artificial self-awareness?

We're much further along than what you probably believe. If its not here yet already; wait; it will be. Then what will your rebuttal be?

 

[NoorNoor]

The physical forces such as magnetism and gravity are not mysterious and are completely predictable and consistent,

No, only the influence of the forces is predictable and consistent but the nature of the force itself is totally mysterious. Why/ how it exists and what give it the specific values is not known. we can observe the effects not the facts .

dark energy is only theoretical at this stage, is not a physical force, but rather a hypothesis to explain the behavior of matter in the universe in terms of gravitation

Dark energy is a hypothesis of a repulsive force to explain observations of the accelerated expansion of the universe. Any force would be initially a hypothesis to explain a behavior of matter. The existence of any force can only be recognized through an observed influence.

It is not just a matter of, observing its influence, but of doing so always in exactly the same measure, that requires no belief, just measurements. Now, when it comes to gods, there is no inexplicable, constant and constant physical effect that can be pointed to as evidence of a god's actions.

Yes, its not random but rather exactly same measure. Observed order in the behavior of matter necessarily indicates the existence of physical forces that controls the specific observed behavior. One step up and we can see that the collective behavior of the physical forces itself is not random, it manifests order which similarly indicates an existence of another controlling force of a higher level that controls the physical forces itself.

In fact, most of what is pointed to as evidence of gods is the classic argument from ignorance, e.g., "we don't know so that must be a god." There are lots of things that our collective knowledge/science can not create ... that is hardly evidence of a god, it is just evidence that we lack the knowledge and/or technology

In other words, you say "we don't know so that must not be God" how can that lack of knowledge be a proof that God doesn't exist? It's a conclusion without knowledge or proof. On the other hand, If we consider theism as a hypothesis that explains or consistent with both historical accounts and cosmic observations, then what are the basis to reject this hypothesis? Beyond what people would like or don't like to believe, Why can't God exist?

First, You said when it comes to God, there is no inexplicable (above) then , you admitted lack of knowledge. That is a contradiction.

 

[NoorNoor]

A "creation scientist" is that "scientist" (and I hate to use this word in this context) who seeks to disprove evolution for religious reasons and/or prove creationism.

If he is not specialized in any scientific field, how or why you consider him to be a scientist? If he is not a scientist, why you argue or expect contribution to science by some one who is not a scientist?

As far as artificial self-awareness?

We're much further along than what you probably believe. If its not here yet already; wait; it will be. Then what will your rebuttal be?

You make a wish. I state the fact. I'll wait. If it never happens, what will your rebuttal be?

 

[viole]

What is it like to be a bat?

Bats, being mammals, have experiences.
This means that there is something that it is to like to be a bat.
However, the activities and even sensory system of a bat is very different from ours.
For example, bats fly around at night using echolocation to determine the size, shape, distance, and even texture of the insects that bats eat.
Given that we have no experiences that are similar to those of a bat, we cannot answer questions such as "Do bats hear echoes in color?"
This problem exists not only with bats but also with other people. Can we know what it's like to be born blind, for example?

These questions relate to the mind-body problem and the problem of physicalism.

Your answer seems to imply that people simply cannot know all physical facts (because we're human).

Let's take another example, however, which I am borrowing from Laurence Bonjour's What Is It Like To Be A Human? publication.

Imagine that a Martian comes to Earth. He is quite different from humans in that he works much as does a bat. Martians live underground and use echolocation to "see" their surroundings in fine detail. This Martian has a machine that permits him to discovery every physical fact about an object in as much detail as it desires – even down to the spin states of the electrons. Martians have no sense of right, wrong, God, ethics, or morality. Martians simply consume underground fungi and/or other Martians. Martians are unisexual and simply lay a clutch of eggs, which they immediately abandon and out of which hatches several young who fight until one has killed and eaten all of the others.

Do you think that this Martian could use this machine to determine what it's like to feel guilt? Or what it's like to see a red rose? Or what it's like to love your children so much that you sacrifice your life for them? If the answer is no, yet the Martian can use its machine to determine every physical fact, then it follows that physicalism is false.

Since we have a brain that behaves like a machine with a finite number of states, and it evolved mainly to have an intuition or to enable experiences of what is necessary to survive (an intuition of what it is like to be a bat does not belong to the skill set necessary to survive, while loving children does) it is obvious that there are experiences that we cannot possibly do, no matter how much we know.

Again, not beng able to have experiences of X, despite knowing everythng there is to know about X, does not entail that a possible experience of X would be not physical. It would just entail that computing machines like our brains are incomplete.

If you really think that such obvious conclusions destroy physicalism, then I would think again.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Since we have a brain that behaves like a machine with a finite number of states, and it evolved mainly to have an intuition or to enable experiences of what is necessary to survive (an intuition of what it is like to be a bat does not belong to the skill set necessary to survive, while loving children does) it is obvious that there are experiences that we cannot possibly do, no matter how much we know.

Again, not beng able to have experiences of X, despite knowing everythng there is to know about X, does not entail that a possible experience of X would be not physical. It would just entail that computing machines like our brains are incomplete.

If you really think that such obvious conclusions destroy physicalism, then I would think again.

Ciao

- viole

It has nothing to do with what I think. These are the top theories advanced by the top philosophers in the world from the beginning of time till now. It's what is taught at the most prestigious universities in the world. I'm glad that you can so flippantly ignore the research in the area. While you're at it, why don't you explain blindsight to all of us and the implications for the mind-body problem? That ought to be good.

 

[Sapiens]

No, only the influence of the forces is predictable and consistent but the nature of the force itself is totally mysterious. Why/ how it exists and what give it the specific values is not known. we can observe the effects not the facts .



Dark energy is a hypothesis of a repulsive force to explain observations of the accelerated expansion of the universe. Any force would be initially a hypothesis to explain a behavior of matter. The existence of any force can only be recognized through an observed influence.



Yes, its not random but rather exactly same measure. Observed order in the behavior of matter necessarily indicates the existence of physical forces that controls the specific observed behavior. One step up and we can see that the collective behavior of the physical forces itself is not random, it manifests order which similarly indicates an existence of another controlling force of a higher level that controls the physical forces itself.



In other words, you say "we don't know so that must not be God" how can that lack of knowledge be a proof that God doesn't exist? It's a conclusion without knowledge or proof. On the other hand, If we consider theism as a hypothesis that explains or consistent with both historical accounts and cosmic observations, then what are the basis to reject this hypothesis? Beyond what people would like or don't like to believe, Why can't God exist?

First, You said when it comes to God, there is no inexplicable (above) then , you admitted lack of knowledge. That is a contradiction.

One of the best attempts I've seen at shifting the burden of proof, but ... no sale. I have no need to "prove" God's nonexistence, in fact, it is not possible to do so. You, on the other hand must prove god's existence, which is (at least) theoretically possible and you have failed to do so. All you've got (as usual) is an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

 

[NoorNoor]

One of the best attempts I've seen at shifting the burden of proof,

I am not shifting the burden of proof. I am making an argument and you didn't provide any response.

I have no need to "prove" God's nonexistence, in fact, it is not possible to do so.

Why not? Would you accept if I affirm a claim and simply say I have no need to prove it? you simply tell billions of theists, "God doesn't exist but I have no need to prove it because the proof is beyond me". Totally meaningless.

You, on the other hand must prove god's existence, which is (at least) theoretically possible and you have failed to do so

Not true. If you consider God's existence as a (theoretically possible) hypothesis, then I explained the reasons that support the probability of that hypothesis. On the other hand, you failed to provide any reason to support your hypothesis that God doesn't exist.

If God's existence is theoretically possible and you can not disprove it, why you think God doesn't exist?

All you've got (as usual) is an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

You ignored every thing I said and continued (as usual) to only provide personal opinions and cliches such as "doesn't fly", "no sale", "argument from ignorance", "god of the gaps" in addition, you excused your self of providing a proof for your claim because it's not possible. I accept your excuse. This argument is not for you.

 

[McBell]

If God's existence is theoretically possible and you can not disprove it, why you think God doesn't exist?

Because "theoretically possible" does not equate "proven fact".

You ignored every thing I said and continued (as usual) to only provide personal opinions and cliches such as "doesn't fly", "no sale", "argument from ignorance", "god of the gaps" in addition, you excused your self of providing a proof for your claim because it's not possible. I accept your excuse. This argument is not for you.

You have made it painfully clear your "arguments" are for the choir.

If you do not want to be called out for using argument from ignorance and god of the gaps, then simply stop using arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

In other words, you say "we don't know so that must not be God"

I state that it is irrational to believe in a given thing without impirical evidence of that given thing being true.

In other words, you say "we don't know so that must not be God" how can that lack of knowledge be a proof that God doesn't exist? It's a conclusion without knowledge or proof.

Lack of impirical evidence indicates lack of knowledge. Moreover, I state that my non-belief is a "belief based statement" There is no contradiction.

On the other hand, If we consider theism as a hypothesis that explains or consistent with both historical accounts and cosmic observations, then what are the basis to reject this hypothesis?

Countless. And beyond the scope of this thread. But if I am wrong and there is a God, I believe there is enough evidence to (or lack thereof) to say with reasonable certainty that it certainly isn't the God of Abraham.

First, You said when it comes to God, there is no inexplicable (above) then , you admitted lack of knowledge. That is a contradiction.

No. See above.

PS -- I dont' call "creation scientists" "scientists". They call themselves that. So, I guess that we are actually in agreement with my intiial statement that started our entire exchange to begin with: "Creation Scientists offer no new knowledge or discoveries to the pool of knowledge".

Again we have ended up right where we began after untwisting the words you so diligently twisted.

 

[Sapiens]

I am not shifting the burden of proof. I am making an argument and you didn't provide any response.

You are continuing to try to shift the burden.

Why not? Would you accept if I affirm a claim and simply say I have no need to prove it? you simply tell billions of theists, "God doesn't exist but I have no need to prove it because the proof is beyond me". Totally meaningless.

We've been through this one many, many times. It is quite impossible to prove a negative (God could always be hiding under the next member of an infinite number of rocks, it is impossible to prove that a god is not doing so without looking under that rock, and then there always is another rock.).

Not true. If you consider God's existence as a (theoretically possible) hypothesis, then I explained the reasons that support the probability of that hypothesis. On the other hand, you failed to provide any reason to support your hypothesis that God doesn't exist.

The theoretical possibility of a god is granted, though quite illogical.

If God's existence is theoretically possible and you can not disprove it, why you think God doesn't exist?

Because there is no evidence of such a thing.

You ignored every thing I said and continued (as usual) to only provide personal opinions and cliches such as "doesn't fly", "no sale", "argument from ignorance", "god of the gaps" in addition, you excused your self of providing a proof for your claim because it's not possible. I accept your excuse. This argument is not for you.

"argument from ignorance" and "god of the gaps" are not personal opinions, they are logical and real objections to your premise, yes ... they are cliche, but that is your fault, not mine.

 

[gnostic]

Why not? Would you accept if I affirm a claim and simply say I have no need to prove it? you simply tell billions of theists, "God doesn't exist but I have no need to prove it because the proof is beyond me". Totally meaningless.

There are 3 possibilities when considering what is factually TRUE or what is factually FALSE:

1. Something is TRUE, if the evidences can verifiably and empirically support a statement.
   
2. Something is FALSE, if the evidences go against a statement, thereby the statement is refuted.
3. Something is FALSE, if there are no evidences to support the statement, which would also refute the statement.

You only have FACT, if you have EVIDENCES.

The fact is there are no evidence to support any deity, including that of the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims. They believe that God is real, that called BELIEF and FAITH, not FACT.

BELIEF and FAITH are subjective-based, very much like personal opinion (or view) or personal taste. FAITH and BELIEF is pretty much what one desire, whether it is real or not, hence it is very similar to WISH.

Unless, everyone can see, hear and feel God directly regardless if people are theists, atheists or agnostics, and regardless if people are scientists or not scientists, such BELIEF and FAITH is more like WISHES. And wishes don't count as evidences.

So it doesn't matter if one person believe in God or one hundred people, 1 million or 1 billion people, these belief rest solely on their FAITH, not on FACTUAL EVIDENCES.

The real problem with you, and other people like you, NoorNoor, is that you don't know how to distinguish between FAITH and FACT, or between FAITH and EVIDENCE. It seems apparent that you view them as one and the same.

They are not the same.

FAITH relies on one's conviction to his (or her) belief. Therefore FAITH required no evidences.

FACT, on the other hand, required EVIDENCES, regardless of what people believe in.​

For me, I view religious belief as the same as superstitious belief.

They believe in something is real, based on ignorance and fear - that's what superstition is.

Jews used to view madness as evil spirits send by God, to inflict upon man, like the way it did with King Saul. Christians believe that madness come from demon possession, which can be cured through exorcism, or Satan (Devil) whispering lies and deception, making them fall into temptations. Muslims believe in the same things as Christians do, except they called demons jinns instead, and Satan is Iblis.

All of the above, whether it is Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and their respective scriptures are all based the authors believing in superstitions, and not understanding fragility of man's mind (hence ignorance). And each one is based their belief in their scriptures on superstition, and superstition alone.

This was all before man understood psychology, the study of man's emotion, behavior and state of mind.

Not true. If you consider God's existence as a (theoretically possible) hypothesis, then I explained the reasons that support the probability of that hypothesis. On the other hand, you failed to provide any reason to support your hypothesis that God doesn't exist.

If God's existence is theoretically possible and you can not disprove it, why you think God doesn't exist?

Something (explanation) theoretical doesn't mean it is TRUE, NoorNoor.

In science, theoretical explanation is just a possibility. It is true or false, is based on mathematical REPRESENTATION of reality, with mathematical equation or mathematical models.

This is what it mean, when scientists and mathematicians used the word - PROOF. Proof is a mathematical solution or mathematical possibility.

But REPRESENTATION through mathematical equation or mathematical model is not REAL or TRUE, UNLESS it is supported by evidences.

In physics, there are some explanations (like theory or hypothesis) that cannot be verified or tested, but does have mathematical proof (or solution), hence they are called THEORETICAL PHYSICS.

Theoretical, in science, is not merely just possibilities, it is about finding solution through alternative method through mathematical equations or models. It is alternative to observation via testings or evidences.

None of the theoretical physics are true, until they can be tested or verified as being true or real.

Example of theoretical physics, String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-Theory, Multiverse model, etc.

Your belief in God and scriptures, is not scientific, because there are no evidences to support the Qur'an or the existence of Allah. Nor do your belief is theoretical, because there are no mathematical equations in the Qur'an.

I agreed with Mestemia when he wrote:

Because "theoretically possible" does not equate "proven fact".

Being theoretical, doesn't mean it is fact, because theoretical only numbers, and nature don't always agree with numbers or equations.

If scientists want facts, then he must find evidences, not proof. Sometimes, evidences (fact) and maths can go hand-in-hand, but clearly theoretical science relies only on maths.

Your belief in Allah, Muhammad and the Qur'an is based solely on your FAITH, not on evidence, proof (mathematical solution) or science.

Can you provide mathematical proof of the existence of Allah?

PS. Please excuse me, for using CAPLOCK on specific words in my reply. I am not "shouting", I am just merely emphasizing certain words, because it is quicker than highlighting and pressing the BOLD button.

 

[NoorNoor]

Because "theoretically possible" does not equate "proven fact".

How is that relates to my question? Read it again.
"theoretically possible" neither means proven nor disproven. It only means that the possibility exists. If we first admit that God's existence is a possibility that does exist and we agreed that the possibility can't be disproven, then, it's illogical to claim that God's existence is not possible.

God's "nonexistence" is not a proven fact. Your irrelevant logic works both ways. It's meaningless.

You have made it painfully clear your "arguments" are for the choir.

If you do not want to be called out for using argument from ignorance and god of the gaps, then simply stop using arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps.

The argument should be based on logic not personal opinions. Nonsense Cliches such as God of the gaps and lord of the rings with no relevance to a point of discussion is only an argument from ignorance that reflects failure to address the subject of the discussion.

 

[NoorNoor]

I state that it is irrational to believe in a given thing without impirical evidence of that given thing being true.

Don't you believe that "God doesn't exist"? What's your empirical evidence?
Or is it just a mere faith?

if I am wrong and there is a God, I believe there is enough evidence to (or lack thereof) to say with reasonable certainty that it certainly isn't the God of Abraham.

Why? If God exists, then why you think he is not the one approaching humans with his messengers?why would he just play a passive role? That doesn't make sense.

PS -- I dont' call "creation scientists" "scientists". They call themselves that. So, I guess that we are actually in agreement with my intiial statement that started our entire exchange to begin with: "Creation Scientists offer no new knowledge or discoveries to the pool of knowledge"

If they are not scientists, then it doesn't make any sense to claim they don't have scientific achievements. Again, If you want to compare, then the comparison has to be apples to apples. In other words, theist scientists vs. atheist scientists. Otherwise it's meaningless.

 

[NoorNoor]

You are continuing to try to shift the burden.

Why you think you don't have a burden to prove your claim?

We've been through this one many, many times. It is quite impossible to prove a negative (God could always be hiding under the next member of an infinite number of rocks, it is impossible to prove that a god is not doing so without looking under that rock, and then there always is another rock.).

How is your inability to search under all rocks, is a proof that God doesn't exist?

The theoretical possibility of a god is granted, though quite illogical.

Why?

Because there is no evidence of such a thing.

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist. Yet, you do believe it. Why?

"argument from ignorance" and "god of the gaps" are not personal opinions, they are logical and real objections to your premise, yes ... they are cliche, but that is your fault, not mine.

It's relevance to a discussion is a personal opinion. Relying on cliches Is an approach to change the subject of a discussion rather than keeping the argument on track.

 

[viole]

It has nothing to do with what I think. These are the top theories advanced by the top philosophers in the world from the beginning of time till now. It's what is taught at the most prestigious universities in the world. I'm glad that you can so flippantly ignore the research in the area. While you're at it, why don't you explain blindsight to all of us and the implications for the mind-body problem? That ought to be good.

What mind-body problem? The mind is what the brain does, there is no problem. Here is some evidence:

Orpwood, Roger (2007). "Neurobiological Mechanisms Underlying Qualia". Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 06 (04): 523–33.

Orpwood, Roger (2013). "Qualia Could Arise from Information Processing in Local Cortical Networks". Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00121

István Aranyosi A new argument for mind-brain identity. (Physical constituents of qualia.

Austen Clark (1985). A physicalist theory of qualia

Dennis Nicholson (ms). How qualia can be physical.

István Aranyosi (forthcoming). A new argument for mind-brain identity.

Pwned!

Ciao

- viole