The battle of evolution vs creationism

[gnostic]

I concur for the most part.....
and I believe in God because of science

science will lead you to that 'point' of decision
it will not make the choice for you

Belief in god and belief in religion and in scripture, are all "faith-based"...and are man-made.

Except for any field of theoretical physics (e.g. superstring theory, M-theory, multiverse) which are "mathematical-based" (or proof-based), most of other science that rely on empirical methodology (experimental physics, chemistry, biology) are "evidence-based".

Evidence-based science, or empirical science, also used logic and mathematical solution(s) like theoretical physics, BUT are "testable" and "observable", meaning they can be tested and the ability to test a statement (theory or hypothesis) is to ability to refute or verify the statement.

Regardless of science being "theoretical" or "empirical", they are all man-made, and way for man to acquire knowledge through proof (logic and mathematical equations) or through observation (evidences or testing).

(Note that some theories started out as being theoretical, but ended up being empirical-based or evidence-based theories because tests were found to validate the theories. Examples of such transition from theoretical to empirical, are Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, the Big Bang (...well at least some part of the BB is testable or observable; the earlier epochs to Big Bang are still theoretical and hypothetical).

It is man who created science, not god. Both science and religion are man-made, but the differences between the two, is that religions rely on belief and faith, while science rely on evidences or tests.

When I talk of "tests" and "evidences", these tests or evidences have the ability to refute any statement as much as verify any statement.

That's what make science different from religion and faith.

Science can be questioned and challenged because any statement can be refuted through the mean of tests, experiments or evidences. No science is absolute. Any theory can be replaced or corrected.

Religion, on the other hand, relies on belief and faith, in what I would call "superstition". The problem with religion is that it fall into dogma, and cannot be questioned, challenged, corrected or tested, which is why there are no mechanisms for self-correction.

Your view that you believe in god because of science, is merely your personal opinion and personal belief. God has nothing to do with science, just as god has nothing to do with building bridges, farming or carpentry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the point is the event of your birth will never come past if an infinite number of events preceded it. So this is not something that would be "weird" if it happened..this is something that just can't happen, PERIOD.

Here's a thought for you: The fact that there is something rather than nothing seems to imply that either something has existed an infinite amount of time into the past, or that something came into being from nothing uncaused.

Can you think of a third or fourth possibility? I can't.

Yet both propositions seem absurd - impossible. Unless I've formulated this problem mistakenly, something highly counterintuitive is true, and it is a mistake to look at either of these in isolation from the other and declare it impossible. You'd appear to be right if you did, but the alternative seems no less impossible.

It's probably a mistake to apply the reasoning capability that evolved in brains that were tasked with dealing with the matters that occur on the scale of unaided human existence, between the scales of grains of sand and mountain ranges. When we look at the relativistic and quantum scales, reason betrays us. How can energy and matter possibly be the same thing when energy includes motion (kinetic energy) and position (potential energy)? How can light have a barrier to its maximal speed? How can an electron pass through a slit and interfere with itself?

What can we say with confidence when taking about even grander scales?

 

[McBell]

.if the universe (all space, matter, time and energy) is finite, then it began to exist and requires an external cause. If it is infinite, then explain to me how the event of your birth can come to past if an infinite number of moments preceded it.

Please be so kind as to reveal the last digit of pi.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Causation would be necessary even if a Supreme Being didn't exist, because the chain couldn't have started from a state of nothingness. If the chain as a whole couldn’t come from “nothing”, that would mean that the chain as a whole had to exist eternally and necessarily. If the chain as a whole couldn’t come from anything, then it had to already be here under necessary parameters.

Yes. Something seemingly impossible also seems to be necessarily true. You're now saying that nothing can have existed for an infinite time already, and that nothingness cannot lead to somethingness.

Postulating a god doesn't relieve the paradox. The same things are true for it - it either has existed infinitely into the past, or it arose spontaneously and uncaused from nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to postulate that a god or anything else can exist outside of time. If you would, I'd suggest that you consider what "exist" means, or what it means to say that something exists outside of time?

Time is a necessary aspect of existence. If something used to exist, it's time for existing is over. If something will exist, it's time for existing is coming. If something currently exists, the time of its existence includes this moment.

To exist is to persist through a series of consecutive instants.

Two other things that require time: thinking and acting. They both require before and after states. Does God think or act? If so, He exists in time.

 

[Skwim]

Please be so kind as to reveal the last digit of pi.

It's 2. Take my word for it.

.

 

[Thief]

Belief in god and belief in religion and in scripture, are all "faith-based"...and are man-made.

Except for any field of theoretical physics (e.g. superstring theory, M-theory, multiverse) which are "mathematical-based" (or proof-based), most of other science that rely on empirical methodology (experimental physics, chemistry, biology) are "evidence-based".

Evidence-based science, or empirical science, also used logic and mathematical solution(s) like theoretical physics, BUT are "testable" and "observable", meaning they can be tested and the ability to test a statement (theory or hypothesis) is to ability to refute or verify the statement.

Regardless of science being "theoretical" or "empirical", they are all man-made, and way for man to acquire knowledge through proof (logic and mathematical equations) or through observation (evidences or testing).

(Note that some theories started out as being theoretical, but ended up being empirical-based or evidence-based theories because tests were found to validate the theories. Examples of such transition from theoretical to empirical, are Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, the Big Bang (...well at least some part of the BB is testable or observable; the earlier epochs to Big Bang are still theoretical and hypothetical).

It is man who created science, not god. Both science and religion are man-made, but the differences between the two, is that religions rely on belief and faith, while science rely on evidences or tests.

When I talk of "tests" and "evidences", these tests or evidences have the ability to refute any statement as much as verify any statement.

That's what make science different from religion and faith.

Science can be questioned and challenged because any statement can be refuted through the mean of tests, experiments or evidences. No science is absolute. Any theory can be replaced or corrected.

Religion, on the other hand, relies on belief and faith, in what I would call "superstition". The problem with religion is that it fall into dogma, and cannot be questioned, challenged, corrected or tested, which is why there are no mechanisms for self-correction.

Your view that you believe in god because of science, is merely your personal opinion and personal belief. God has nothing to do with science, just as god has nothing to do with building bridges, farming or carpentry.

you cannot circumvent cause and effect
all of science relies on it

substance will remain at rest until moved
the universe (one word) came from a singular location

Spirit first

 

[Thief]

Not far as I am concerned. I would not say it has not to do with your view of it.

Then again, I can't claim to understand your view of it.

without understanding my view.......
and you seem certain I am mistaken?

 

[LuisDantas]

without understanding my view.......
and you seem certain I am mistaken?

Yes. Does that surprise you? It should not.

 

[Thief]

Yes. Does that surprise you? It should not.

making a judgement that I have error
all the while saying you do not understand my view....
is poor judgement

and no...I am not surprised

 

[LuisDantas]

making a judgement that I have error
all the while saying you do not understand my view....
is poor judgement

and no...I am not surprised

I understand your claims just well enough to know that I do not have any reason to be bothered.

 

[Thief]

I understand your claims just well enough to know that I do not have any reason to be bothered.

and yet you bother....

maybe if you try harder to understand....a little more than
just enough

 

[LuisDantas]

and yet you bother....

No, I don't. I would not even know where to begin if I wanted to - which I do not.

maybe if you try harder to understand....a little more than
just enough

Not a chance.

 

[Thief]

No, I don't. I would not even know where to begin if I wanted to - which I do not.


Not a chance.

so...are you done here?

 

[gnostic]

you cannot circumvent cause and effect
all of science relies on it

Science rely on evidences.

If there are "effect", science required evidences for the "effect".

And if there is a "cause" for that "effect", then science would also require "evidences" for the "cause" too.

And then, science would need even more evidences to show the "cause" is actually linked to the "effect".

You can talk of cause-and-effect all you want, but in science, without the evidences, your cause-and-effect is meaningless.

So show me evidences that God is the cause of creation of this world.

...Oh, no. Wait...There are no evidences for God being the cause, because as you know there are no fingerprint of God, no photos of God, and you can't put God on the Petri-dish.

Isn't that what you always say, when people ask you for evidences?

I remember in your past posts, in older threads, that you always say there is no evidence and no proof God, because always say you can't put God on Petri-dish.

Well, science required EVIDENCES.

Without the EVIDENCES, any claim you make, including the ones about "cause-and-effect", is nothing more than your personal opinion.

Cause and effect are only valid scientifically, if you have evidences to back them up, Thief. And you know well as I that you can't God, you can't test miracles, you can't test afterlife or resurrection, so none of these are scientifically valid.

 

[McBell]

you cannot circumvent cause and effect

..until it gets you to god...
Then cause and effect are tossed out the window like yesterdays garbage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok, so me murdering your entire family and rapeing all of the women in your family isn't objectively wrong.

No. It is wrong because we agree that it is wrong. Where's the objective evidence that it is wrong? Nowhere.

if God does not exist then there isn't any objective evil anyway, as you already stated that there is no objective moral values. So if there is no objective evil, then everything is arbitrary and you have no case to make against evil.

You seem to be using a better definition of objective when modifying "evil" than when modifying "moral values." Of course, we could quibble about whether a god's values are objectively anything either. If so, is this god compelled to have them?

Even if our values are arbitrary, we can make the case against malice.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If there was no evil before the creation of man/beings...but there was evil after the creation of man/beings...doesn't that tell you that evil stems from man/beings?

No. With omniscience and omnipotence comes omniresponsibility.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are all sinful beings, and any suffering that we may go through may very well be as an act of judgment by God, or even to draw us closer to him, as many people can personally testify too.

Evil is the opposite of righteousness, and one can only be righteous if one chooses to be righteous...that is called FREE WILL, cot. Evil exist because there are people that chooses to do the wrong thing. Suffering exists because of sin, and we've all committed a sin or two in our lives.

These are the kinds of ideas that emerge from the faith based idea that there is a god that despite being omnipotent, can do no wrong. All wrong needs to be displaced elsewhere. Why not put it on man and Satan. Never mind who is responsible for them.

And then we are asked to deem the god good, but don't judge the god. How should I decide between worshiping Satan and Jehovah if I can't make moral judgments about them?

To me the closest thing to sin in the story is a god capable of making us have the will He desires, but gives us the capacity to do otherwise, is intolerant of that, and will use torture as a gratuitous and meaningless punishment. How is that different than giving kids alcohol and the car keys, and then torturing them for joy riding under the influence. And how would that scenario differ from leaving them unsupervised in a garden with a tempting tree and a demon. When you set people up to fail, it's your fault.

Giving people free will was the sin if exercising it is not acceptable. As parents, we everything do in our power to try to determine what our children's will will be, If we could set a dial on them, we would compel them to always be what we considered intelligent and moral. With the power of a god, I would create perfect children with no ability to be stupid or immoral.

But I can't, and so must settle for what is possible that is closest to that.

You would see these objections clearly and hold them yourself if you didn't feel compelled to excuse this god for its choices.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe in God because of science

That's a new one.

Why do you suppose that so much of Christianity is trying to undermine and discredit science. It's an ancient tradition. Christianity has been an enemy of science from the start. Copernicus knew this, which is why he waited until near death to publish his work on heliocentrism.

It's also why Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting that ours was a solar system and that there were other solar systems in space, and why Galileo was under house arrest for pointing out that the moons of Jupiter did not revolve around the earth.

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." - Dawkins

Do you disagree?

Had I lived before the first wave of scientists showed us how the universe can operate without a ruler god to move the planets or cause currents to flow through wires, I'd have been a monotheist in the tradition of the Abrahamic religions. What other choice was there?

Had I lived just after that period, I'd have been a deist, since I no longer required a ruler god, but would still require a designer and creator god.

But with Darwin and Hubble (et al.), and with godless hypotheses for the origins of the singularity and first cell such as the multiverse hypothesis and the abiogenesis hypothesis, the deist god appears expendable as well. What does such an idea add? Why reintroduce it?

 

[Thief]

Science rely on evidences.

If there are "effect", science required evidences for the "effect".

And if there is a "cause" for that "effect", then science would also require "evidences" for the "cause" too.

And then, science would need even more evidences to show the "cause" is actually linked to the "effect".

You can talk of cause-and-effect all you want, but in science, without the evidences, your cause-and-effect is meaningless.

So show me evidences that God is the cause of creation of this world.

...Oh, no. Wait...There are no evidences for God being the cause, because as you know there are no fingerprint of God, no photos of God, and you can't put God on the Petri-dish.

Isn't that what you always say, when people ask you for evidences?

I remember in your past posts, in older threads, that you always say there is no evidence and no proof God, because always say you can't put God on Petri-dish.

Well, science required EVIDENCES.

Without the EVIDENCES, any claim you make, including the ones about "cause-and-effect", is nothing more than your personal opinion.

Cause and effect are only valid scientifically, if you have evidences to back them up, Thief. And you know well as I that you can't God, you can't test miracles, you can't test afterlife or resurrection, so none of these are scientifically valid.

your misusing the word evidence

science relies on it's sureness in practice
cause and effect can never be ignored.

the universe was set in motion....from one location

it did not do so of it's own volition

Spirit first