Evolution Vs Creation

Evolution Vs Creation

Author
Discussion

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
science doesn't deal with metaphysics
Yep. Because it's all bollixes.



Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
What is it about the scientific method that means it can't be used to show there is a god (if one exists)?

If god has physical properties - there is no reason to assume these can't be measured using scientific methodologies.

It is your beliefs that lead you to assert that science cannot prove god exists. You already have preconceived ideas regarding the nature of god - ideas that were not derived from first principal. Religious dogma dictates that the nature of god is unknowable - therefore your arguments are all derived from the flawed assumption that the dogma cannot be incorrect.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 16th April 14:53

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
A belief that 'God created humans' is compatible with evolutionary explanations, because evolution is just one more tool for God to 'do' things. Now, far more direct claims - 'God uses lightning to smite the wicked' - could be disproven, by (but not exclusively) scientific models. But those sorts of claims are far, far fewer in number when it comes to the history of science. More common are vague or entirely "natural" explanations or models that were displaced."
What you have just described is a god of the gaps.

Our understanding of lightning, how it arises etc means that we can demonstrate (with quite a high degree of certainty) that it is a natural phenomena and not the wrath of god. The "wrath of god" explanation for lightning has been consigned to history because of the increased scientific knowledge.

Now for something like abiogenesis - our understanding is far less developed, we have gaps in our knowledge - meaning it is much easier to slot god in there and suggest that he merely uses evolution as a tool.

The question is - what happens as our understanding of abiogenesis increases. Will we ultimately get to the same end point as we have with lightning.

im

34,302 posts

216 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
What you have just described is a god of the gaps.

Our understanding of lightning, how it arises etc means that we can demonstrate (with quite a high degree of certainty) that it is a natural phenomena and not the wrath of god. The "wrath of god" explanation for lightning has been consigned to history because of the increased scientific knowledge.

Now for something like abiogenesis - our understanding is far less developed, we have gaps in our knowledge - meaning it is much easier to slot god in there and suggest that he merely uses evolution as a tool.

The question is - what happens as our understanding of abiogenesis increases. Will we ultimately get to the same end point as we have with lightning.
Why would a creature with the omnipotence of a God go to all of the bother of evolving a human being from a single celled proto-life form over tens of millions of years when he could simply 'will' us into creation already fully-formed. What was the point, from his perspective, of those wasted millions of years of non-humanity whilst other creatures he'd evolved from the same single celled animal ruled the earth???

It just makes no sense.

burwoodman

18,709 posts

245 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
A belief that 'God created humans' is compatible with evolutionary explanations, because evolution is just one more tool for God to 'do' things. Now, far more direct claims - 'God uses lightning to smite the wicked' - could be disproven, by (but not exclusively) scientific models. But those sorts of claims are far, far fewer in number when it comes to the history of science. More common are vague or entirely "natural" explanations or models that were displaced."
utter rubbish. The religious have chosen to change their stance on evolution, faced with the irrefutable fact that Evolution it is real. Your God is just one of hundreds-it is not the God of the bible. The bible certainly conflicts with evolution. Where Adam & Eve Apes? Not according to the great book.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
A belief that 'God created humans' is compatible with evolutionary explanations, because evolution is just one more tool for God to 'do' things.
This was the argument put forward by CaptainMuppet which I thought I'd pretty much debunked, about 7000 pages ago!

Engineer1

10,486 posts

208 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB's God is almost indstigishable from there not being a God for all the input he has in the universe since started it, it's just Chris belives he exists.

burwoodman

18,709 posts

245 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
If there is one thing God like it is called the Universe. Engineer is spot on, CGB's God is indescribable and impossible to explain.

Captain Muppet

8,540 posts

264 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ChrisGB said:
A belief that 'God created humans' is compatible with evolutionary explanations, because evolution is just one more tool for God to 'do' things.
This was the argument put forward by CaptainMuppet which I thought I'd pretty much debunked, about 7000 pages ago!
To be fair it was a silly argument. It helps a few Christians beleive in evolution too, which is nice, albeit at the cost of entirely debunking the idea that their god lets them have any free will.

xRIEx

8,180 posts

147 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
xRIEx said:
ChrisGB said:
durbster said:
ChrisGB said:
blissful ignorance of the fact that this scientism is blatantly and obviously not possibly true, because scientific method is just a method, not some idea or meta-method that can prove itself. To justify believing in scientism, you need to engage in rational thought and get into philosophy and metaphysics to work out how it could be that this method gives all truth.
Or you could merely look at the computer you're typing this guff on, and the internet which allows people from all corners of the globe to join together and develop RSI from relentlessly facepalming while reading this thread.

Science has proved itself over and over and over. The scientific method has done more for mankind than any religion ever has.

Book a flight on your smartphone, get on the plane, fly to Australia and then explain to me how science is "just a method".
But this is ridiculous! Of course science has given us technological advances, of course. There is nothing anti-science in anything I have written.

But there is plenty against this brain-dead silliness insisting without any possibility of demonstrating it, logically or empirically, that scientific method is the ONLY way of knowing (scientism) or that matter is the ONLY thing that exists, or that nature is ALL there is, or that EVERYTHING is reducible to atoms or strings etc. These are all patently false yet believed in blindly as the default cultural positions of many Westerners.

The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
Know. Knowledge.

Can you show me one single thing that can only be known by a method other than the scientific method, and cannot be shown by the scientific method?
Err:
1.exactly the quality of my feeling when I read your post and the private associations it has for me, reminding me of the taste of bad apple juice from the 80s, or whatever it might be. Unavailable to scentific method, and to any ideology piggy backing on that third person method (scientism, materialism, naturalism, eliminativism, reductionism), available to first person perspective only.
2. Scientific method can't show that thoughts are about something, final causality can.
3. Scientific method can't show that formal thinking is purely material, hylemorphism can show it isn't.
4. Scientific method can't show that there is no other type of knowledge, philosophy can show there is.
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
You have demonstrated absolutely nothing. Again.

Come back when you have proof.

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
What is it about the scientific method that means it can't be used to show there is a god (if one exists)?

If god has physical properties - there is no reason to assume these can't be measured using scientific methodologies.

It is your beliefs that lead you to assert that science cannot prove god exists. You already have preconceived ideas regarding the nature of god - ideas that were not derived from first principal. Religious dogma dictates that the nature of god is unknowable - therefore your arguments are all derived from the flawed assumption that the dogma cannot be incorrect.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 16th April 14:53
Would it be fair to say that in every post you have written on my ideas you at some point have to say that my "belief forces" me to do this or that.
Can you actually back that up instead of just making the accusation? What foundation do you have for such an accusation?
As I usually reply, if my belief forces me to adopt this argument, then a) how come many Christians wouldn't take this line, b) many people come to faith because of the arguments, not the other way round.

Now to your point above:
It is the conclusion to an enquiry about causality that tells you there is something that is purely actual, I.e. that has no potentialities and therefore isn't going to change in any way. This thing therefore couldn't have any physical properties, because these would make it complex and subject to change.
As scientific method only deals with the physical, there is nothing for it to do when it comes to God.

Engineer1

10,486 posts

208 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Chris I hate to burst your bubble but your religion is largly a geographic thing religion is also more often than not inherited from your parents.

Did you look at and reject all other religions or even the various sects?

Edited by Engineer1 on Wednesday 16th April 21:31

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
ChrisGB said:
A belief that 'God created humans' is compatible with evolutionary explanations, because evolution is just one more tool for God to 'do' things. Now, far more direct claims - 'God uses lightning to smite the wicked' - could be disproven, by (but not exclusively) scientific models. But those sorts of claims are far, far fewer in number when it comes to the history of science. More common are vague or entirely "natural" explanations or models that were displaced."
What you have just described is a god of the gaps.

Our understanding of lightning, how it arises etc means that we can demonstrate (with quite a high degree of certainty) that it is a natural phenomena and not the wrath of god. The "wrath of god" explanation for lightning has been consigned to history because of the increased scientific knowledge.

Now for something like abiogenesis - our understanding is far less developed, we have gaps in our knowledge - meaning it is much easier to slot god in there and suggest that he merely uses evolution as a tool.

The question is - what happens as our understanding of abiogenesis increases. Will we ultimately get to the same end point as we have with lightning.
First, as I said, I didn't write that bit.
Second, I think the point is that given God, it doesn't really matter how life got here or we got here. God did it and evolution did it, to use that example, are not rival claims but just two ways of viewing the same facts that could be held without any inconsistency by the same person.
As the writer points out, science cannot give us a naturalistic explanation of something, because that presupposes a decision about nature being the only possible field of enquiry, which is not something science can establish.


ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
xRIEx said:
ChrisGB said:
xRIEx said:
ChrisGB said:
durbster said:
ChrisGB said:
blissful ignorance of the fact that this scientism is blatantly and obviously not possibly true, because scientific method is just a method, not some idea or meta-method that can prove itself. To justify believing in scientism, you need to engage in rational thought and get into philosophy and metaphysics to work out how it could be that this method gives all truth.
Or you could merely look at the computer you're typing this guff on, and the internet which allows people from all corners of the globe to join together and develop RSI from relentlessly facepalming while reading this thread.

Science has proved itself over and over and over. The scientific method has done more for mankind than any religion ever has.

Book a flight on your smartphone, get on the plane, fly to Australia and then explain to me how science is "just a method".
But this is ridiculous! Of course science has given us technological advances, of course. There is nothing anti-science in anything I have written.

But there is plenty against this brain-dead silliness insisting without any possibility of demonstrating it, logically or empirically, that scientific method is the ONLY way of knowing (scientism) or that matter is the ONLY thing that exists, or that nature is ALL there is, or that EVERYTHING is reducible to atoms or strings etc. These are all patently false yet believed in blindly as the default cultural positions of many Westerners.

The fundamentalist error is to then say : therefore this method is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING, which is easily refuted - prove it using scientific method! Whoops!
Know. Knowledge.

Can you show me one single thing that can only be known by a method other than the scientific method, and cannot be shown by the scientific method?
Err:
1.exactly the quality of my feeling when I read your post and the private associations it has for me, reminding me of the taste of bad apple juice from the 80s, or whatever it might be. Unavailable to scentific method, and to any ideology piggy backing on that third person method (scientism, materialism, naturalism, eliminativism, reductionism), available to first person perspective only.
2. Scientific method can't show that thoughts are about something, final causality can.
3. Scientific method can't show that formal thinking is purely material, hylemorphism can show it isn't.
4. Scientific method can't show that there is no other type of knowledge, philosophy can show there is.
5. Scientific method can't show that there is the God of monotheism, logic and philosophy, eg. In prime mover argument, can.
You have demonstrated absolutely nothing. Again.

Come back when you have proof.
Demonstrated nothing? I've given you five examples of knowledge you can have that scientific method can't give you. Please show me how (4 above) scientific method gives you knowledge that there is no other sort of knowledge?
Show me how you know what something feels like from scientific method, the way you do if you experience it first -person.

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

202 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Engineer1 said:
Chris I hate to burst your bubble but your religion is largly a geographic thing...
religion is also more often than not inherited from your parents.

Did you look at and reject all other religions or even the various sects?

Edited by Engineer1 on Wednesday 16th April 21:31
Religion is universal, therefore religion is false. QED.

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Engineer1 said:
Chris I hate to burst your bubble but your religion is largly a geographic thing...
religion is also more often than not inherited from your parents.

Did you look at and reject all other religions or even the various sects?

Edited by Engineer1 on Wednesday 16th April 21:31
Religion is universal, therefore religion is false. QED.
How about just answering the direct questions that are put to you?!

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Wednesday 16th April 2014
quotequote all
Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.

(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
ChrisGB said:
Religion is universal, therefore religion is false. QED.
So because people believe in gods all over the world, that is proof of your god, or all of them?



It's not your fault.

Engineer1

10,486 posts

208 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
rxtx said:
So because people believe in gods all over the world, that is proof of your god, or all of them?



It's not your fault.
And from that answer he's hell bound the first 3 of the ten commandments say Jehova is god and he's a jealous god so admitting others exist is going to piss him off no end.

ofcorsa

3,527 posts

242 months

Thursday 17th April 2014
quotequote all
The trouble I have with hylermorphism is it starts of by defining form and matter separately and and saying one is removable from the other. It then decides that form is actually the soul?

Edited by ofcorsa on Thursday 17th April 08:27