New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[sayak83]

Evidence that puts in doubt uniformitarian assumptions about a very old Earth. Such evidence is available across a variety of scientific disciplines.

My proposition that there is no such evidence. My further proposition is that the evidence for old earth and an old universe is overwhelming so that no scientist, looking at the evidence, can rationally justify not accepting an old earth and an old universe.
Now, how do you suggest will be the most fruitful way in examining both for and against evidence starting from an agnostic position on the subject?
Note:- scientific evidence alone, unguided by any Biblical, atheistic or other religious theology will be used to arrive at the conclusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't believe different mammals evolved from a common ancestry. I'm okay with a taxonomy system that says mammals are of a kind. This alone would prevent Evolutionary theory from saying mammals evolved from another kind of animal.

Well, now we're back to our original issue, i.e., the definition of "kind". My general impression from creationists is that a "kind" includes all organisms that share a common ancestry. That's why they refer to a "dog kind"; they believe all the members of the dog family are descended from an original "kind".

But here you're saying something different. You're saying that mammals are a "kind" but don't share a common ancestry. So again, just what is your definition for "kind"?

What kind of citation will state, do you think, "Scientists compare similar fossils and then draw dotted lines between them to show lines of descent"?

You said that taxonomy and lines of descent are based on the abundance of fossils. I'm wondering where you got that.

 

[Jose Fly]

1. The fossil record has much to tell us. Scientists and Creationists have alternative explanations, for example, for the fact that 99% of extant fossils are marine life. Ss and Cs have alternative explanations for finding more advanced species at higher layers of fossil deposits, etc. I'm aware that fossils require unique situations to be formed--every dead animal I've discovered has failed to fossilize. I think catastrophism like Noah's flood and subsequent layer shifts in geology can help explain the presence of fossils, where we find them, the fossil layers and more.

How so? Give me an example of something in the fossil record you think is best explained by a global flood that occurred ~4,500 years ago.

2. I understand that you are speaking of a complete 4B-year record. I'm thinking more so of the fact that multiple times in my own lifetime, scientists have made adjustments to commonly held beliefs. For example, the discovery of the coelacanth turned an assumption about millions of years of time into an embarrassing canard.

Tell you what.....rather than assume what you're about to say (because I've seen it so many times from creationists), how about you explain just what it is about the coelacanth that you find to be such a compelling talking point.

3. I'm aware that the US is an outlier. I'm aware that Europe is going to Hell in a handbasket, also, which hasn't escaped my notice.

And as the paper noted, the US's outlier status is primarily the result of fundamentalist religion and conservative politics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My proposition that there is no such evidence. My further proposition is that the evidence for old earth and an old universe is overwhelming so that no scientist, looking at the evidence, can rationally justify not accepting an old earth and an old universe.
Now, how do you suggest will be the most fruitful way in examining both for and against evidence starting from an agnostic position on the subject?
Note:- scientific evidence alone, unguided by any Biblical, atheistic or other religious theology will be used to arrive at the conclusion.

How would you recommend I add "universal flood" as one possible interpretation of the data without a religious backing? You will let that be my alternative hypothesis?

How would you recommend that only I am restricted? Are you saying you pre-reject any scientific evidence that leads to non-mechanistic means (such as alien engineering)? Is that scientific or scientism?

How should I interpret "overwhelming evidence" as you wrote? I read that as "He knows there is counter-evidence and is already arrived at a conclusion based on the amounts of such evidence." If both of us have already arrived at a conclusion, why are we having a discussion?

How are we to discuss cosmology, which runs counter to established inductive law (like Conservation of Matter and Energy) while only using established inductive law? Is that how scientists look back "beyond the Big Bang"?

 

[sayak83]

How would you recommend I add "universal flood" as one possible interpretation of the data without a religious backing? You will let that be my alternative hypothesis?

Its quite simple, you will look at the evidence in the rocks and see alternative physical mechanisms that could have brought it about and establish the likelyhood of each by experimental resulsts and tests. Every possible mechanism starts with equal probability, but the ones which, on experimental evidence, is found to reproduce most of the results is accepted as most likely.

How would you recommend that only I am restricted? Are you saying you pre-reject any scientific evidence that leads to non-mechanistic means (such as alien engineering)? Is that scientific or scientism?

I pre-reject all mechanism that cannot yet be observed or tested and hence nothing can be said about what kind of evidence they will leave behind. If a new mechanism is proposed, it must tell us beforehand what evidence one is likely to see and what evidence one is not likely to see if that was indeed the mechanism before the observational results come in ...so that one can see if the predictions match the evidence.

Thus if you say the mechanism is universal flood, you will have to list what one is likely to see and what one is not likely to see (both verification and falsification observations) so that, with those listed, one can go out on the field and check what is what.

Not scientism, just science. Here I am only interested in what conclusions about the age of the earth and geological processes of the earth can be drawn by the proper application of the scientific method of hypothesis formulation, prediction, falsification criteria development and eventual observation and experimentation.
If your rationale for holding a position is not the application of the scientific method and the conclusions that stem from that, then those views are not scientific views. You can hold them, but you cannot say that they are based on application of the scientific method to the question.

How should I interpret "overwhelming evidence" as you wrote? I read that as "He knows there is counter-evidence and is already arrived at a conclusion based on the amounts of such evidence." If both of us have already arrived at a conclusion, why are we having a discussion?

Because I certainly believe there is a possibility (though a very remote one) that I have overlooked something that would cause me to reassess my conclusions. Thus beginning from agosticism, and bracketing out my prior beliefs, and looking at all the evidence afresh in conjunction with you doing the same have a chance (though small) of altering my conclusions.

How are we to discuss cosmology, which runs counter to established inductive law (like Conservation of Matter and Energy) while only using established inductive law? Is that how scientists look back "beyond the Big Bang"?

Any and all proposed exceptions or new laws have to be first validated through observation, evidence or testing before they can be included as a proposed explanation. If you cannot demonstrate or provide an evidence for the violation of the law of energy conservation or develop a mathematically predictive mechanism by which this energy conservation violation can be predicted (when does it happen, under what conditions and by how much) then that is not something that can be used in any fruitful manner in explaining any observation in the world through the scientific method.
Once again you can believe what you will. But those beliefs will be non-scientific beliefs not based on usage and application of the scientific method to the evidence found in the rocks and the cosmos. Scientific method will lead to a different conclusion, and hence you should have no reason to complain that science is not reaching your conclusions about the world, for science is what scientific method establishes as the most probable (but falsifiable) predictive explanation of the features of reality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Its quite simple, you will look at the evidence in the rocks and see alternative physical mechanisms that could have brought it about and establish the likelyhood of each by experimental resulsts and tests. Every possible mechanism starts with equal probability, but the ones which, on experimental evidence, is found to reproduce most of the results is accepted as most likely.

I pre-reject all mechanism that cannot yet be observed or tested and hence nothing can be said about what kind of evidence they will leave behind. If a new mechanism is proposed, it must tell us beforehand what evidence one is likely to see and what evidence one is not likely to see if that was indeed the mechanism before the observational results come in ...so that one can see if the predictions match the evidence.

Thus if you say the mechanism is universal flood, you will have to list what one is likely to see and what one is not likely to see (both verification and falsification observations) so that, with those listed, one can go out on the field and check what is what.

Not scientism, just science. Here I am only interested in what conclusions about the age of the earth and geological processes of the earth can be drawn by the proper application of the scientific method of hypothesis formulation, prediction, falsification criteria development and eventual observation and experimentation.
If your rationale for holding a position is not the application of the scientific method and the conclusions that stem from that, then those views are not scientific views. You can hold them, but you cannot say that they are based on application of the scientific method to the question.

Because I certainly believe there is a possibility (though a very remote one) that I have overlooked something that would cause me to reassess my conclusions. Thus beginning from agosticism, and bracketing out my prior beliefs, and looking at all the evidence afresh in conjunction with you doing the same have a chance (though small) of altering my conclusions.

Any and all proposed exceptions or new laws have to be first validated through observation, evidence or testing before they can be included as a proposed explanation. If you cannot demonstrate or provide an evidence for the violation of the law of energy conservation or develop a mathematically predictive mechanism by which this energy conservation violation can be predicted (when does it happen, under what conditions and by how much) then that is not something that can be used in any fruitful manner in explaining any observation in the world through the scientific method.
Once again you can believe what you will. But those beliefs will be non-scientific beliefs not based on usage and application of the scientific method to the evidence found in the rocks and the cosmos. Scientific method will lead to a different conclusion, and hence you should have no reason to complain that science is not reaching your conclusions about the world, for science is what scientific method establishes as the most probable (but falsifiable) predictive explanation of the features of reality.

Its quite simple, you will look at the evidence in the rocks and see alternative physical mechanisms that could have brought it about and establish the likelyhood of each by experimental resulsts and tests. Every possible mechanism starts with equal probability, but the ones which, on experimental evidence, is found to reproduce most of the results is accepted as most likely.

Sounds good.

I pre-reject all mechanism that cannot yet be observed or tested and hence nothing can be said about what kind of evidence they will leave behind. If a new mechanism is proposed, it must tell us beforehand what evidence one is likely to see and what evidence one is not likely to see if that was indeed the mechanism before the observational results come in ...so that one can see if the predictions match the evidence.

Thus if you say the mechanism is universal flood, you will have to list what one is likely to see and what one is not likely to see (both verification and falsification observations) so that, with those listed, one can go out on the field and check what is what.

Not scientism, just science. Here I am only interested in what conclusions about the age of the earth and geological processes of the earth can be drawn by the proper application of the scientificmethod of hypothesis formulation, prediction, falsification criteria development and eventual observation and experimentation.
If your rationale for holding a position is not the application of the scientific method and the conclusions that stem from that, then those views are not scientific views. You can hold them, but you cannot say that they are based on application of the scientific method to the question.

Also solid here. I would say uniformitarianism is swiss cheese science and plan to present some evidence in this regard.

Because I certainly believe there is a possibility (though a very remote one) that I have overlooked something that would cause me to reassess my conclusions. Thus beginning from agosticism, and bracketing out my prior beliefs, and looking at all the evidence afresh in conjunction with you doing the same have a chance (though small) of altering my conclusions.

No, that can’t be right. Children ask their atheist parents all the time about God—even the ones living on desert islands. No one starts with agnosticism, scientifically speaking. They would of necessity and an inquiring mind start with “I hear about God constantly. Could there be more to this tale?”

Nor if we are restricted to scientific evidence and scientific thinking only can you make this assertion so early. If I am to thrust aside the Bible, you would of necessity need to thrust aside your agnosticism. We have to be consistent.

And let’s be honest—you and I want to talk origins of the Earth, go back to the singularity of the Big Bang, and then stop, because the scientific inductive door closes there? No metaphysics? Nothing immaterial?

Logic and math are immaterial—should we throw them out during this discussion of geology, cosmology and biology?

The Bible isn’t immaterial, it’s a collection of documents in the historical record, whether or not we can agree as to what percentage of it is fact. If we were studying history and not cosmology, would it be appropriate to throw the Bible aside?

Scientists use terms from the Bible constantly. A Christian came up with the Linnean classification system. We cannot even use science to talk about the universe “in the beginning” because it MUST be pre-existent without a Creator—that which acted upon the Big Bang singularity to expand it MUST be an internal catalyst or an external catalyst or both. The singularity was of (near-) infinite density and etc. in pre-Newtonian state and terms.

I’m not sure I can do this logically if we won’t have some axioms, throw out historical documents, and come to some first cause adherences in terminology. This won’t work. Why are you so dogmatic in these areas?

And what is the danger if the Bible is a crock of me using it in the discussion? What is the problem? Are you certain we are doing science and not scientism.

Any and all proposed exceptions or new laws have to be first validated through observation, evidence or testing before they can be included as a proposed explanation. If you cannot demonstrate or provide an evidence for the violation of the law of energy conservation or develop a mathematically predictive mechanism by which this energy conservation violation can be predicted (when does it happen, under what conditions and by how much) then that is not something that can be used in any fruitful manner in explaining any observation in the world through the scientific method.

Once again you can believe what you will. But those beliefs will be non-scientific beliefs not based on usage and application of the scientific method to the evidence found in the rocks and the cosmos. Scientific method will lead to a different conclusion, and hence you should have no reason to complain that science is not reaching your conclusions about the world, for science is what scientific method establishes as the most probable (but falsifiable) predictive explanation of the features of reality.

You are putting me on here . . . ? EVERY scientist and cosmologist I respect says “the Law of Conservation was NOT in effect prior to the initial expansion of the Big Bang singularity. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Scientific method will lead to a different conclusion, and hence you should have no reason to complain that science is not reaching your conclusions about the world, for science is what scientific method establishes as the most probable (but falsifiable) predictive explanation of the features of reality.

While the scientific method can be used for its great predictive power for future events, it is of limited use in past events. You are using trace elements and fossils with no DNA or feathers to extrapolate backward by also using uniformitarian assumptions made inductively in only a few thousand years of history. Do you not know that?

 

[sayak83]

Sounds good.



No, that can’t be right. Children ask their atheist parents all the time about God—even the ones living on desert islands. No one starts with agnosticism, scientifically speaking. They would of necessity and an inquiring mind start with “I hear about God constantly. Could there be more to this tale?”

Nor if we are restricted to scientific evidence and scientific thinking only can you make this assertion so early. If I am to thrust aside the Bible, you would of necessity need to thrust aside your agnosticism. We have to be consistent.

I would note that agnosticism is not my position. So I am thrusting aside my own worldview (a Hindu worldview with Brahman as the underlying root reality behind both the self and the world) in order to go to the neutral territory of agnosticism. Therefore its only fair that you do the same.

And let’s be honest—you and I want to talk origins of the Earth, go back to the singularity of the Big Bang, and then stop, because the scientific inductive door closes there? No metaphysics? Nothing immaterial?

Correct, because that is as far as scientific method leads upto now. We shall see what it has established (in terms of probability estimates) and what it says is unlikely within what it has been able to investigate via its methods. No more, no less. As soon as we go beyond it, it would move into my Hindu metaphysics against your Christian metaphysics debate which will take us beyond the science and religion section's purview.

Logic and math are immaterial—should we throw them out during this discussion of geology, cosmology and biology?

Logic and math are abstract, not immaterial. Language is abstract, symbols and information is abstract, categories are abstract, scientific models are abstract. There can be abstractions of immaterial things as well. For example the category of original sin is an abstract, the category of angelic beings is an abstract, the concept of trinity is an abstract, so are the laws of karma. Material systems can instantiate abstractions, as when a computer does 2+2=4 through voltage fluctuations in its material system, so can, maybe, non-material things (God can think for example). Thus the presence of abstractions do not create any unusual problems.

The Bible isn’t immaterial, it’s a collection of documents in the historical record, whether or not we can agree as to what percentage of it is fact. If we were studying history and not cosmology, would it be appropriate to throw the Bible aside?

But we are not studying history. In history, Bible will be considered one record of human experience among many.

Scientists use terms from the Bible constantly. A Christian came up with the Linnean classification system. We cannot even use science to talk about the universe “in the beginning” because it MUST be pre-existent without a Creator—that which acted upon the Big Bang singularity to expand it MUST be an internal catalyst or an external catalyst or both. The singularity was of (near-) infinite density and etc. in pre-Newtonian state and terms.

And a Hindu scientist(Satyen Bose) came up with bosons, the fundamental constituent of current matter and a Hindu philosopher (Kanada) came up with atoms before Democritus did. A Buddhist philosopher came discovered the subconscious mind 1500 years before Freud did. So what? I can provide you with a 10 volume history of the scientific and mathematical progress of Hindu and Buddhists in South Asia if you are interested.

If we can't talk about it using the scientific methods, I will not talk about it in this thread. Only what the scientific method can establish given current observations and what it cannot. That will delineate what science has and has not established given what is known up until now. That will establish the boundaries of settled scientific knowledge.

I’m not sure I can do this logically if we won’t have some axioms, throw out historical documents, and come to some first cause adherences in terminology. This won’t work. Why are you so dogmatic in these areas?

Because I am only interested here in what the methods of science has concluded about the reality pertaining to the age of the earth and the universe. If you are interested in discussing Christianity vs Hinduism then I will be interested in discussing the things you mention.

And what is the danger if the Bible is a crock of me using it in the discussion? What is the problem? Are you certain we are doing science and not scientism.

yes i am sure we are doing science. All science starts with agnosticism...i.e. we do not know the answer and all possibilities must be investigated and rigorously tested for verification/falsification through observation, predicting and experimentation to figure out which is the most probable. If the observations are unavailable or ambiguous, if no precise and falsifiable predictions exist and/or if no experiments are available to be done, then whatever it is, it isn't science.
It would be completely trivial for me to import my own axioms of Brahman and the Hindu worldview and show it to be consistent with everything science knows until now. That would move the discussion in a different direction entirely.

You are putting me on here . . . ? EVERY scientist and cosmologist I respect says “the Law of Conservation was NOT in effect prior to the initial expansion of the Big Bang singularity. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Then we shall discuss if they are statements backed up by the scientific method or not won't we? What model of reality are such proclamations based on, how is it being tested for verification/falsification. What evidence exists for or against it. Etc. We have agreed to look at it via the inner workings of science and not by what most scientists say the final conclusion is, because if you go by that, the science regarding evolution and age of the earth is settled is it not?
Are there any living non-theist scientist whose views and opinions you respect? Just curious as to whether whom you respect is based on your prior worldview commitment.
My respect is not given to scientists at all, but the most fruitful papers on science and the methods and conclusions in them, objectively measurable by number of times other scientists have been forced to use it for their own work (i.e. citation numbers). No worldview commitment there.The scientists themselves are name-labels adorning and identifying those fruitful papers.

While the scientific method can be used for its great predictive power for future events, it is of limited use in past events. You are using trace elements and fossils with no DNA or feathers to extrapolate backward by also using uniformitarian assumptions made inductively in only a few thousand years of history. Do you not know that?

The scientific method is as useful in predicting the past states as the future ones. Information about what the past was like can be predicted and then observations can be done that shows if that prediction about the past state was correct or not. Example:- Predicting from the presence of a rare cosmological element in the rock strata found only in meteorites that a meteorite struck the earth in the past and then finding the crater of that meteorite confirming the prediction.

I will propose that uniformatarinaism with respect to the laws of physics up to the Big Bang is not an axiom of the scientific method but an evidence based conclusion of the method. Should our discussion start with you contesting and I supporting the this claim?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would note that agnosticism is not my position. So I am thrusting aside my own worldview (a Hindu worldview with Brahman as the underlying root reality behind both the self and the world) in order to go to the neutral territory of agnosticism. Therefore its only fair that you do the same.


Correct, because that is as far as scientific method leads upto now. We shall see what it has established (in terms of probability estimates) and what it says is unlikely within what it has been able to investigate via its methods. No more, no less. As soon as we go beyond it, it would move into my Hindu metaphysics against your Christian metaphysics debate which will take us beyond the science and religion section's purview.


Logic and math are abstract, not immaterial. Language is abstract, symbols and information is abstract, categories are abstract, scientific models are abstract. There can be abstractions of immaterial things as well. For example the category of original sin is an abstract, the category of angelic beings is an abstract, the concept of trinity is an abstract, so are the laws of karma. Material systems can instantiate abstractions, as when a computer does 2+2=4 through voltage fluctuations in its material system, so can, maybe, non-material things (God can think for example). Thus the presence of abstractions do not create any unusual problems.


But we are not studying history. In history, Bible will be considered one record of human experience among many.


And a Hindu scientist(Satyen Bose) came up with bosons, the fundamental constituent of current matter and a Hindu philosopher (Kanada) came up with atoms before Democritus did. A Buddhist philosopher came discovered the subconscious mind 1500 years before Freud did. So what? I can provide you with a 10 volume history of the scientific and mathematical progress of Hindu and Buddhists in South Asia if you are interested.

If we can't talk about it using the scientific methods, I will not talk about it in this thread. Only what the scientific method can establish given current observations and what it cannot. That will delineate what science has and has not established given what is known up until now. That will establish the boundaries of settled scientific knowledge.


Because I am only interested here in what the methods of science has concluded about the reality pertaining to the age of the earth and the universe. If you are interested in discussing Christianity vs Hinduism then I will be interested in discussing the things you mention.


yes i am sure we are doing science. All science starts with agnosticism...i.e. we do not know the answer and all possibilities must be investigated and rigorously tested for verification/falsification through observation, predicting and experimentation to figure out which is the most probable. If the observations are unavailable or ambiguous, if no precise and falsifiable predictions exist and/or if no experiments are available to be done, then whatever it is, it isn't science.
It would be completely trivial for me to import my own axioms of Brahman and the Hindu worldview and show it to be consistent with everything science knows until now. That would move the discussion in a different direction entirely.




Then we shall discuss if they are statements backed up by the scientific method or not won't we? What model of reality are such proclamations based on, how is it being tested for verification/falsification. What evidence exists for or against it. Etc. We have agreed to look at it via the inner workings of science and not by what most scientists say the final conclusion is, because if you go by that, the science regarding evolution and age of the earth is settled is it not?
Are there any living non-theist scientist whose views and opinions you respect? Just curious as to whether whom you respect is based on your prior worldview commitment.
My respect is not given to scientists at all, but the most fruitful papers on science and the methods and conclusions in them, objectively measurable by number of times other scientists have been forced to use it for their own work (i.e. citation numbers). No worldview commitment there.The scientists themselves are name-labels adorning and identifying those fruitful papers.



The scientific method is as useful in predicting the past states as the future ones. Information about what the past was like can be predicted and then observations can be done that shows if that prediction about the past state was correct or not. Example:- Predicting from the presence of a rare cosmological element in the rock strata found only in meteorites that a meteorite struck the earth in the past and then finding the crater of that meteorite confirming the prediction.

I will propose that uniformatarinaism with respect to the laws of physics up to the Big Bang is not an axiom of the scientific method but an evidence based conclusion of the method. Should our discussion start with you contesting and I supporting the this claim?

I would note that agnosticism is not my position. So I am thrusting aside my own worldview (a Hindu worldview with Brahman as the underlying root reality behind both the self and the world) in order to go to the neutral territory of agnosticism. Therefore its only fair that you do the same.

Sounds good to me, although that will burn a lot of time typing extra phrases (if a powerful intelligence or force did X) and etc.

Correct, because that is as far as scientific method leads upto now. We shall see what it has established (in terms of probability estimates) and what it says is unlikely within what it has been able to investigate via its methods. No more, no less. As soon as we go beyond it, it would move into my Hindu metaphysics against your Christian metaphysics debate which will take us beyond the science and religion section's purview.

That is my point, the scientific method is limited. Why restrict yourself? What regarding your Hindu worldview informs you that thrusting aside your worldview is liberating (regarding going where science CANNOT go)?

Logic and math are abstract, not immaterial. Language is abstract, symbols and information is abstract, categories are abstract, scientific models are abstract. There can be abstractions of immaterial things as well. For example the category of original sin is an abstract, the category of angelic beings is an abstract, the concept of trinity is an abstract, so are the laws of karma. Material systems can instantiate abstractions, as when a computer does 2+2=4 through voltage fluctuations in its material system, so can, maybe, non-material things (God can think for example). Thus the presence of abstractions do not create any unusual problems.

ab·stract - existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

im·ma·te·ri·al - incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied

As important, we cannot weigh or mete out abstractions using science only. “How long should this criminal serve in prison?” may not be measured using scientific apparatus.

But we are not studying history. In history, Bible will be considered one record of human experience among many.

With the exception that the Bible offers explanations for Earth’s origins and also informs us that scoffers proffer uniformitarian alternatives.

Are we not going to use psychology? That’s a science, if an abstract one at times. Psychology and the Bible inform me that uniformitarian theories are rooted in an anti-biblical bias due to scientism – and also any history book that offers miracles.

yes i am sure we are doing science. All science starts with agnosticism

It does now, not in the millennia prior, which is why scientists keep making mistakes. Have you Googled the horrors that have been perpetrated by scientists applying evolutionary theory in innocence but in an uninformed way regarding reality?

I will propose that uniformatarinaism with respect to the laws of physics up to the Big Bang is not an axiom of the scientific method but an evidence based conclusion of the method. Should our discussion start with you contesting and I supporting the this claim?

Close, how about AFTER the Big Bang!

 

[sayak83]

Sounds good to me, although that will burn a lot of time typing extra phrases (if a powerful intelligence or force did X) and etc.



That is my point, the scientific method is limited. Why restrict yourself? What regarding your Hindu worldview informs you that thrusting aside your worldview is liberating (regarding going where science CANNOT go)?



ab·stract - existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

im·ma·te·ri·al - incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied

As important, we cannot weigh or mete out abstractions using science only. “How long should this criminal serve in prison?” may not be measured using scientific apparatus.



With the exception that the Bible offers explanations for Earth’s origins and also informs us that scoffers proffer uniformitarian alternatives.

Are we not going to use psychology? That’s a science, if an abstract one at times. Psychology and the Bible inform me that uniformitarian theories are rooted in an anti-biblical bias due to scientism – and also any history book that offers miracles.



It does now, not in the millennia prior, which is why scientists keep making mistakes. Have you Googled the horrors that have been perpetrated by scientists applying evolutionary theory in innocence but in an uninformed way regarding reality?



Close, how about AFTER the Big Bang!

I have gone ahead and started a thread on this topic. Comment, discuss, dispute, criticize.
Evidence for an ancient earth

 

[Shad]

I'm still hoping you are open to proof.



Which proof would you like from me (to the best of my ability)?

* Proof God exists

* Proof Jesus is God

* Proof atheism breaks natural law and is illogical

* Proof the Bible is divine in origin

* Etc.

??

Pick your best arguments from any topic you wish.

Sorry for the delay. I have been busy and RF was an unnecessary distraction for the last 2 weeks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Pick your best arguments from any topic you wish.

Sorry for the delay. I have been busy and RF was an unnecessary distraction for the last 2 weeks.

No problem, thanks for your courtesy.

My argument would be it's not evidence but response to evidence. I say I will give you $10 if you call me on Skype. You can--if $10 is a good motivation--either call me because you trust me (BB tells truth) or you want to suss out my lie (I distrust BB).

If I say God is self-evident to me, and apparently, to most persons, and that all you need to do to find God is to seek Him, do you lack evidence (millions of people encouraging everyone to seek God) or motivation (you might not like what you will find)?

 

[viole]

No problem, thanks for your courtesy.

My argument would be it's not evidence but response to evidence. I say I will give you $10 if you call me on Skype. You can--if $10 is a good motivation--either call me because you trust me (BB tells truth) or you want to suss out my lie (I distrust BB).

If I say God is self-evident to me, and apparently, to most persons, and that all you need to do to find God is to seek Him, do you lack evidence (millions of people encouraging everyone to seek God) or motivation (you might not like what you will find)?

With "to most persons", do you include the Muslims and the Hindus?

Do you think that if you seek God in Iran, you will get the same results that you get if you seek God in Alabama?

Another question: why did we never observe churches in Australia or North America when the westeners landed there? Do we really need missionaries if finding God would be so reliable?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

With "to most persons", do you include the Muslims and the Hindus?

Do you think that if you seek God in Iran, you will get the same results that you get if you seek God in Alabama?

Another question: why did we never observe churches in Australia or North America when the westeners landed there? Do we really need missionaries if finding God would be so reliable?

Ciao

- viole

1. Are you saying most Muslims do not say God exists? I just returned from a Muslim nation--you are not capturing the scene accurately. Are you saying most Hindus don't adhere to one or more gods? Really?!

2. I do think if you seek God in Iran, Alabama, in the scriptures, etc. you can find Him. You aren't more or less special than me--you're a person to whom an invitation is extended.

3. Did Christian missionaries to Australia and the Americas find atheist tribes or peoples interested deeply in spirituality and god(s)? Explaining--as in the NT--to deeply religious persons that Jesus brings truth and light is different than wandering the world to find that atheist societies are nonexistent.

You are goalpost shifting with all three of your questions. I'm asking why you lack motivation to pursue the evidence before you, not which pieces of evidence differ in Islam, Alabama or Australia.

 

[Shad]

My argument would be it's not evidence but response to evidence.

Sorry I do not know exactly what you mean by this.

I say I will give you $10 if you call me on Skype. You can--if $10 is a good motivation--either call me because you trust me (BB tells truth) or you want to suss out my lie (I distrust BB).

I fail to see any merit in this argument when it comes to this discussion.

If I say God is self-evident to me, and apparently, to most persons, and that all you need to do to find God is to seek Him, do you lack evidence (millions of people encouraging everyone to seek God) or motivation (you might not like what you will find)?

Evidence of millions or billion encouraging me to look for God is not evidence of God but evidence of a belief in God. It is an ad populum argument as well since you are using these numbers as if the belief is true. Which from your point of view it is. However since I do not hold this axiom I look at it differently.

Motivation is tricky yet you have confined it only to one desire. You have injected this one desire and a possible outcome. I may have motivation from simple curiosity, to give you the benefit of the doubt, to challenge my preconceptions, to learn about a religious view without following said view as historian might, etc. More so this seems like a setup for an attack on me based on my motivation which you have created for me. So if your arguments fail to convince me you can fall back to question my motivation. This type of argument can be used against you. Say I present evidence of Christianity being false and you reject it. I can call into question your motivates. I could claim your belief has created a straight-jacket thus you have no motivation to explorer my argument.

I expected arguments for Christianity not about what people believe nor motivation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry I do not know exactly what you mean by this.



I fail to see any merit in this argument when it comes to this discussion.



Evidence of millions or billion encouraging me to look for God is not evidence of God but evidence of a belief in God. It is an ad populum argument as well since you are using these numbers as if the belief is true. Which from your point of view it is. However since I do not hold this axiom I look at it differently.

Motivation is tricky yet you have confined it only to one desire. You have injected this one desire and a possible outcome. I may have motivation from simple curiosity, to give you the benefit of the doubt, to challenge my preconceptions, to learn about a religious view without following said view as historian might, etc. More so this seems like a setup for an attack on me based on my motivation which you have created for me. So if your arguments fail to convince me you can fall back to question my motivation. This type of argument can be used against you. Say I present evidence of Christianity being false and you reject it. I can call into question your motivates. I could claim your belief has created a straight-jacket thus you have no motivation to explorer my argument.

I expected arguments for Christianity not about what people believe nor motivation.

I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.

I'm rather saying ad populum is used like a shield--just because everyone is jumping off the Empire State, I won't, makes sense--but everyone except a few atheists says God is self-evident? To deny that seems like hubris to me.

Let me give you a better analogy. You just said everyone except a few believing in God isn't good evidence. It's like what Christopher Hitchens said when asked during late stage cancer about the thousands of letters he received from Christians. He said not ONE letter was attacking him and that he'd had thousands of "praying for your wellness," kind letters. The interviewer pressed him harder and Hitchens said ALL the letters were kind. Just people saying they were asking God to heal him of cancer and bless him.

I was watching the interview at time of initial airing and I'll never forget what happened soon after. The interviewer asked if Hitchens had any evidence for God. What do you think Hitchens said?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.

I'm rather saying ad populum is used like a shield--just because everyone is jumping off the Empire State, I won't, makes sense--but everyone except a few atheists says God is self-evident? To deny that seems like hubris to me.

Do you have a survey which demonstrates that the majority of people consider God to be self-evident?

Let me give you a better analogy. You just said everyone except a few believing in God isn't good evidence. It's like what Christopher Hitchens said when asked during late stage cancer about the thousands of letters he received from Christians. He said not ONE letter was attacking him and that he'd had thousands of "praying for your wellness," kind letters. The interviewer pressed him harder and Hitchens said ALL the letters were kind. Just people saying they were asking God to heal him of cancer and bless him.

I would also like to see the evidence of this, please.

I was watching the interview at time of initial airing and I'll never forget what happened soon after. The interviewer asked if Hitchens had any evidence for God. What do you think Hitchens said?

How is does this argument even work as an analogy?

 

[Shad]

I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.

Like I said seems like due to a focus on motivation. Your example included a denial attack as per "won't like what I will find". Why do you think I wouldn't like what I will find? What is your basis for this? It seems like you have created a caricature of me which you barely communicated but have presented as major point of your argument here. Explain.

You are projecting a conclusion you hold but is not established. I may find something which you never expected. You are jumping the gun here.


You are projecting your point of view which has not be established at all which is the very point to this dialogue. Although I grant that such implication could be a result of how you think and/or write so may not be aware of the bias you have used

I'm rather saying ad populum is used like a shield--just because everyone is jumping off the Empire State, I won't, makes sense--but everyone except a few atheists says God is self-evident?

I can question if their claim of God being self-evident is true. For example most people are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age thus develop a worldview with God as a model of reality which influences how they think. Self-evident merely become wordplay for a method of think they are not aware of.

Ad populum arguments fail as it is a not a method to show a belief is true, merely that a belief is popular. More so your argument gets me to deism or a form of pantheism at best if I accepted the argument, which I do not. If I extend your argument, which is solely grounded in popular belief, can I not show Catholics are right by your very method? After all Catholics outnumber Protestants which I believe you are. What about in a century or two following current trends when Islam could very well be the largest religion. Is Islam suddenly correct as more people believe in it?

To deny that seems like hubris to me.

As above I challenge the conclusion not that people think this way. I acknowledge they think this. I deny that this is some method to evaluate if the belief is true as per the above.

Let me give you a better analogy. You just said everyone except a few believing in God isn't good evidence.

Yes as it is a fallacious argument

It's like what Christopher Hitchens said when asked during late stage cancer about the thousands of letters he received from Christians. He said not ONE letter was attacking him and that he'd had thousands of "praying for your wellness," kind letters. The interviewer pressed him harder and Hitchens said ALL the letters were kind. Just people saying they were asking God to heal him of cancer and bless him. I was watching the interview at time of initial airing and I'll never forget what happened soon after. The interviewer asked if Hitchens had any evidence for God. What do you think Hitchens said?

Non sequitur.

He probably said he had no evidence from what I have read about Hitchens.

I'm not a major follower of "New Atheism" so do not assume that it's popular figures are going to impress me when you name drop.

Keep in mind when I comment on what you have and how written, and how I see your arguments I do not want you to think I am saying your are openly dishonest. I am pointing out that a bias is being injected by the very way you write but you may not be aware of it. This happens to everyone when we write about any topic which involved a "reality model". The words we use reflects our "models". You are making a lot of assumption via axioms when you have yet to convince me of these axioms. This dialogue is not merely about belief in God but about fundamental axioms. Belief in God is not merely a belief such as it looks warm outside when I look out my window. God is a reality game changer when it comes to axioms of reality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you have a survey which demonstrates that the majority of people consider God to be self-evident?


I would also like to see the evidence of this, please.


How is does this argument even work as an analogy?

1. In this case, I recommend you take your own anecdotal survey. Ask three people whom you know are church attendees or etc.

2. You'd like me to find the TV interview, which I watched live, unrecorded, where an interviewer was told by Hitchens that thousands of people wrote to bless him, none to curse him? Why? Hitchens wasn't moved spiritually, only emotionally. He had "no evidence of the love of God after thousands of we God-lovers sent him love notes. How would you be moved by this?

3. Why must all arguments of mine be analogies?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Like I said seems like due to a focus on motivation. Your example included a denial attack as per "won't like what I will find". Why do you think I wouldn't like what I will find? What is your basis for this? It seems like you have created a caricature of me which you barely communicated but have presented as major point of your argument here. Explain.

You are projecting a conclusion you hold but is not established. I may find something which you never expected. You are jumping the gun here.


You are projecting your point of view which has not be established at all which is the very point to this dialogue. Although I grant that such implication could be a result of how you think and/or write so may not be aware of the bias you have used





I can question if their claim of God being self-evident is true. For example most people are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age thus develop a worldview with God as a model of reality which influences how they think. Self-evident merely become wordplay for a method of think they are not aware of.

Ad populum arguments fail as it is a not a method to show a belief is true, merely that a belief is popular. More so your argument gets me to deism or a form of pantheism at best if I accepted the argument, which I do not. If I extend your argument, which is solely grounded in popular belief, can I not show Catholics are right by your very method? After all Catholics outnumber Protestants which I believe you are. What about in a century or two following current trends when Islam could very well be the largest religion. Is Islam suddenly correct as more people believe in it?



As above I challenge the conclusion not that people think this way. I acknowledge they think this. I deny that this is some method to evaluate if the belief is true as per the above.



Yes as it is a fallacious argument



Non sequitur.

He probably said he had no evidence from what I have read about Hitchens.

I'm not a major follower of "New Atheism" so do not assume that it's popular figures are going to impress me when you name drop.

Keep in mind when I comment on what you have and how written, and how I see your arguments I do not want you to think I am saying your are openly dishonest. I am pointing out that a bias is being injected by the very way you write but you may not be aware of it. This happens to everyone when we write about any topic which involved a "reality model". The words we use reflects our "models". You are making a lot of assumption via axioms when you have yet to convince me of these axioms. This dialogue is not merely about belief in God but about fundamental axioms. Belief in God is not merely a belief such as it looks warm outside when I look out my window. God is a reality game changer when it comes to axioms of reality.

**

I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.

Like I said seems like due to a focus on motivation. Your example included a denial attack as per "won't like what I will find". Why do you think I wouldn't like what I will find? What is your basis for this? It seems like you have created a caricature of me which you barely communicated but have presented as major point of your argument here. Explain.

You are projecting a conclusion you hold but is not established. I may find something which you never expected. You are jumping the gun here.

You are projecting your point of view which has not be established at all which is the very point to this dialogue. Although I grant that such implication could be a result of how you think and/or write so may not be aware of the bias you have used.

Hi Shad, I try to take you at face value rather than “read between the lines”. Please do the same. Your response was to my statement, which was:

“I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.”

And then you wrote three paragraphs explaining what I think and that I don’t know what I think subconsciously but that is comes out in my written words. My written words, responding to your precise inquiry, were:

“I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.”

Please take me at my word.

I can question if their claim of God being self-evident is true. For example most people are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age thus develop a worldview with God as a model of reality which influences how they think. Self-evident merely become wordplay for a method of think they are not aware of.

Ad populum arguments fail as it is a not a method to show a belief is true, merely that a belief is popular. More so your argument gets me to deism or a form of pantheism at best if I accepted the argument, which I do not. If I extend your argument, which is solely grounded in popular belief, can I not show Catholics are right by your very method? After all Catholics outnumber Protestants which I believe you are. What about in a century or two following current trends when Islam could very well be the largest religion. Is Islam suddenly correct as more people believe in it?

Okay, how about self-evident or evident? Most people I know are conversant with God as a being and a presence in their daily lives.

I wasn’t using my pitch to get you to be a Christian. But C.S. Lewis moved from atheism > deism > Christian > great apologist. If that’s the path you choose . . . I’m neither able nor wanting to convert you on this forum.

He probably said he had no evidence from what I have read about Hitchens.

I'm not a major follower of "New Atheism" so do not assume that it's popular figures are going to impress me when you name drop.

Keep in mind when I comment on what you have and how written, and how I see your arguments I do not want you to think I am saying your are openly dishonest. I am pointing out that a bias is being injected by the very way you write but you may not be aware of it. This happens to everyone when we write about any topic which involved a "reality model". The words we use reflects our "models". You are making a lot of assumption via axioms when you have yet to convince me of these axioms. This dialogue is not merely about belief in God but about fundamental axioms. Belief in God is not merely a belief such as it looks warm outside when I look out my window. God is a reality game changer when it comes to axioms of reality.

The only argument I was making is Hitchens held a confirmation bias. Taken together, his statement was:

“I have no evidence of the love of Jesus Christ although thousands of Jesus-lovers sent me loving, caring notes and not one Jesus-lover sent me a hateful note. I’ve only recently anecdotally experienced the ratio of 2,000:0 loving Christians so I cannot say with certainty or plausibility or possibility that a loving God might exist.”

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. In this case, I recommend you take your own anecdotal survey. Ask three people whom you know are church attendees or etc.

That would hardly be a representative sample, and I don't see why I should do the work to demonstrate the claim that you made. Obviously you must have some factual basis for your claim, so what is that basis?

2. You'd like me to find the TV interview, which I watched live, unrecorded, where an interviewer was told by Hitchens that thousands of people wrote to bless him, none to curse him? Why? Hitchens wasn't moved spiritually, only emotionally. He had "no evidence of the love of God after thousands of we God-lovers sent him love notes. How would you be moved by this?

So you can't provide me with the interview where he said that "ALL" the letters he received were kind?

I'll wait for you to try again.

3. Why must all arguments of mine be analogies?

You said it was an analogy, but it wasn't. I'm not sure you know how analogies work.