Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Passing lightly, Brother Awe, over the point that for some of us there is evidence which unfortunately is not, given the state of the art, reliably reproducible, that points toward a reading od a very specific style of divine entity [I will spare you the rest of where that wants to take me] -

I wish to point out, not for the first time, that Occam, while useful for restraining youthful imaginations in the classroom, is by no means an inviolable princuiple - that in fact what is inside the black box may be, and often is, very different from the minimal equivalent circuit one calculates.

-----------------

Also, while indubitably there are important theological differences trunk Islam - main current Christianity, it is by no means clear to me that elohim - aloho - allah are separate elephants, that no Islamic God-sightings are compatible with any Christian God sightings.

Actually, Occam would suggest they are in fact feels of different segments of the elephant.

Another delightfully obscure post advocating shadowy insubstantial proposals in the manner of two squirrels fighting inside a pillowcase so one is not sure what is going on.

But if they didn't baffle us with BS, they would have to bedazzle us with some brilliant evidence. And that would be the end of the "debate".

Another pearl of wisdom from the brains trust.

Much appreciated.

Philologos, my objection is to the word "presupposition" at this point. Conclusions are usually justified by evidence, but presuppositions are held to in a more axiomatic sense.

@AG: I'm sure you are aware that presuppositionalist apologetics points out that we all, not limited to Christian believers, begin with certain basic assumptions. Some people accuse "hard science" proponents of having the same or greater FAITH in science that they do in the existence of God. Perhaps it is more appropriate to point out (in different language) that science assumes certain unproven things to exist. For example. numbers are abstract descriptors of quantities. They do not exist for their own sake, yet we symbolically represent them and spend a significant portion of our lives learning about them. Without them, science cannot work. Yet science cannot show me "1" (without a reference to a physical object that is NOT "1"). Also, the ways in which we know anything are dependent on logical thinking. Laws of logic are "invisible," not proven by science in any material way. Yet valid philosophical and scientific arguments are dependent on the laws of logic. Trying to "prove" abstractions or logical laws results in little more than circular reasoning.

Which is not really a problem for PEARLists. So if the existence of God is a basic assumption, why is that so problematic?

Enigmatic expression on face, one eyebrow slightly raised, left hand on chin as if I still wore a beard, I sit back and swivel my chair toward AG.

Getting back to the thread title: what about the hard physical evidence of many different types that clearly show the earth is ancient and life evolves? For evolution specifically I offer two words: nested hierarchies. Nested hierarchies of many different unrelated types of data all produce the same tree of life explained and expected if evolution is true. This is backed up by the fossil record, which includes MANY transitional forms (when hardcore creationists try to say there aren't any).

So, do you deny the evidence of the world your God created? Why would God plant so much false evidence if that isn't the way it really happened? Is He trying to test our faith or trick us into going to hell when we use the senses and reason He gave us to study the world He created? Is your God a trickster? I have no problem with creationism in the sense of there being a Creator. I even have no problem with that Creator being the God of the Christian Bible. You can't tell me though that the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, or that it supports a young earth creationist interpretation. I know better.

Of course an omnipotent Creator could make things LOOK like the earth is old and life evolves, even if we were all created last Tuesday with memories of childhoods we never actually lived. I would be impressed if young earth creationists admitted that all the evidence supports an old earth and the fact of evolution, but they choose not to accept the evidence because of their faith. For them to deny or distort the evidence the way they do is disgusting and brings no honor to God or Christ. It just makes Christianity look stupid.

And finally, none of this would bother me at all if these well-meaning but misguided people weren't so busily trying to sabotage the science education of everyone else's children in public school science classrooms. That is not good for the future of our country, humanity, and the planet.

And yet you typed all of this on a computer and manged to get it posted here. It might be more credible if you challenged the existence of "1" using pen and ink. Numbers are clearly a useful concept.

Yours is a classic creationist word salad offering to toss the whole of human knowledge into the garbage dump just to pretend there is some commonality with "bible science". Seen it many times before.

I know..... the point where I drew question was a PARTICULAR assumption, particularly its apparent conflict with another assumption.

I think that the examples of numbers and logic are more questionable though. A lot of people really consider logic to be a formal thing, thus the laws are simply just being consistent rather than invisible laws. I know I've stated that opinion in multiple places.

lol those who think there are some real object called 1 floating around some mysterious are some 3000 years behind.

No, not really. Numbers are representations of something. Digital data operates like on/off switches, basically--so 1 represents "on" and "0" represents "off," if I understand correctly. Digital data transmission is merely a conduit for communication. So combinations of "1" and "0" are encoded/transmitted and received/decoded in order to make any sense that is meaningful to a computer user. When we are talking about cardinality, we are talking about symbolic characters that represent something that is abstract. "1(one)," "3(three)" and so on have no material existence IN AND OF THEMSELVES. They possess no tangible existence. But they are useful in representing quantities of things (4 cars parked in a driveway) or showing relationships (a distance of 30 feet between two buildings). There are all kinds of things numbers are useful for, but they lack any kind of physical evidence for themselves without manifesting themselves as adjectives and whatnot. The discipline of algebra dwells entirely in the abstract, and my opinion regarding HOW it was taught in most classrooms I ever sat in is low because my teachers dwelt very little on practical applications of it. It is something that only exists "out there." It is not a physical entity.

Not even on a computer. If I type "1" or any number, the number I type is not THE actual number. It is a symbol that represents THE number. Mathematical operations within a computer are based on what the computer itself is programmed to do at the time of the operation. It has to be taught how to count (programming) and what specific data it has to process (input).

If you want me to believe in, say, numbers as something tangible, you have to give me tangible, physical, empirical evidence. You have to put a cardinal unit right in front of me in a form I can see/taste/smell/measure. I don't mean a piece of paper with a number on it that you can cut out and weigh on a scale--otherwise depending on the differing amounts of ink and the varying masses of differing pigments used in ink, 5 could actually be greater than 7, which we know to be mathematically false. I don't want a piece of paper with a number on it. I don't want you to hold up your fingers and ask me how many you're holding up. I want THE ACTUAL number, not some abstraction that only exists in the mind.

The problem is that because it's an abstraction, it has no physical form. It may have various manifestations, such as if I count how many cars are in the parking lot. Symbolic language exists for me to describe that manifestation to you. But 13 cars are not 13 itself.

It's USEFUL. No doubt about that. I USE a computer which uses mathematical processes to deliver a message. But my computer is not a number--it is a tangible tool I use for communicating (among other things). It is made up of material substance. I also have no doubt that numbers really do exist. But I'm honest about recognizing that the existence of abstractions is NOT in the material world. We ASSUME numbers to exist. We ASSUME that laws of logic hold (I recognize what AG is saying, too, though), otherwise how can we know ANYTHING? If we make claims of rationality, being consistent, etc., on what empirical evidence are we making those claims? Does rationality even exist? Yes...just not PHYSICALLY. But without first making the assumption that something which we cannot see or possess physically really does exist, all of our conclusions are baseless.

I don't know what you mean about tossing "the whole of human knowledge into the garbage dump..." You might be attacking a straw man there, and by no means does that accurately represent my position at all. I've already stated that abstractions are useful and that we depend on such things in order to know what we want to know. I have no problem asserting that such things do not physically exist but DO EXIST if only in the mind. I don't even really have a problem accepting some things as fact merely based on "common sense" alone, and I highly value human knowledge. However, I find it fascinating that the same people who make or go along with unreasoned and non-evidenced scientific assumptions (like abstract concepts necessary for scientific exploration and data gathering/recording) in order to form conclusions take issue with those of us who assume that a Creator does exist.

And in none of this have I made any defense for creationism nor have I attacked science. I think perhaps you've assumed incorrectly that is my position. It is not. All I'm saying is that it is inequitable to make assumptions you cannot possibly prove and then proceed to attack others who make assumptions you do not (or do not want to) agree with.

Or as I said using fewer words:

So if you are saying nothing in a thread about creationism, what are you doing here?

He would be repeating the same thing he has said about it anyway.

---------------

Anyway, I don't think more is needed to be said about creationism in the end, as it's crystal clear that creationism is simply not science, and can never be, just simply, religion, given that, it is higly questionable to have a serious consideration about explaining reality, so no debate is really necessary, just that schools need to keep the lunatics outside of actual education without having to debate anything.

There is a huge misconception of the nature of reality and the nature of abstraction here. Abstraction is basically a categorization of classes of patterns. Patterns are intimately involved with ordering perceptions. Reality is an artificial product of paradigmatic thinking. Numbers are merely one way of categorizing observed patterns. They exist in the mind of the observer but all "things" selected out of the general data input of an observing mind are only abstractions. To consider abstractions as non-existent in "reality" merely indicates a basic misunderstanding of reality.