Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

A scientist believes in proof without certainty. A bigot believes in certainty without proof. (another great quotation from the 1984 book Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montague...

Yea, got any evidence of god? No. All the ranting in the world doesn't make an archaic book evidence. You're not worth my time.

God is so well hidden that He might as well not be there.

Science is often abused to take shots at religious beliefs, crossing a line it was never meant to cross.

I've added this quote to my archives. Thanks!

I included that in a short paraphrased list and it was labelled a straw man. Honest attempts to paraphrase are not straw men. There are other examples of this, I don't care to dig up your text walls.

Also, insults and negative opinions about someone are not a logical fallacy.

Ad hominem results when you attempt to logically construct an argument which depends on an insult to establish itself. If you supply an argument and then offer a seperate opinion about someone, or even directly name call without supplying an argument, it's not ad hominem in the sense of a logical fallacy.

Abusing the term ad hominem is itself a kind of ad hominem.

I do not work in a scientific area. I teach music and play piano for a living.

Science is often abused to take shots at religious beliefs, crossing a line it was never meant to cross.

... I am, among other reasons, to inform people of the reliability and truth of the Bible. If you make a challenge in regards to it, I'll find the best answer I can and give it to you.

If the existence of a person, place, or thing is indistinguishable from the non-existence of the same person, place, or thing, then it is safe to say that the person, place, or thing does not exist.

I'm still waiting for Angel Rho, CW10, and others to prove the existence of their God, or to simply admit that they can't.

However, despite the fact that refutations of such proofs have also been refuted

If you had the proof, would you believe that it proved what it was claimed to prove?

I've already said that you can't empirically prove God exists for the express reason that "proving God" is not the purpose of empirical study.

"Proofs" of God lies in theological and philosophical disciplines. Logical proofs have been around for centuries.

However, despite the fact that refutations of such proofs have also been refuted, the central weakness of "classic" proofs is that they stand on a presupposition that God does, in fact, exist. Likewise, refutations rest on presuppositions that God does not or cannot exist. The other main weakness of logical proofs is that while they do establish that God exists, they do not establish that Yahweh is God. Since we don't really have a problem assuming God to exist, the task is really a question of which god is God?

I like your wording: "I'm still waiting...to prove the existence of their God." Not just any God, but MY God. Empirical evidence does not suit the purpose at hand, so we can rule that out. So in a comparison of deities (not just Yahweh) and their associated religion (rituals, doctrine/dogma, mythology, etc.) I personally find that Yahweh makes the most sense.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove the existence of logic without first presupposing logic, or to simply admit that they can't!

That explains a lot. I would come to you for instruction in music theory or piano techniques, but never for an opinion for or against Science.

Science is about discovering knowledge. Believe it or not, many of the challenges made to your beliefs are actually attempts to find out the truth behind your claims, and not to specifically slam you or other faith-based believers. Unfortunately, the cold harshness of such inquiry is often mistaken for personal attacks, especially by those whose whole identity is wrapped around their beliefs.

I suppose that is all that can be expected. Unfortunately, unproven assumptions are not evidence of anything

I am a troubleshooter by inclination, and an engineer by trade and profession. I've been through two years of Seminary training, and dropped out to pursue a more practical line of inquiry. What I learned at seminary is that religion is full of "Just-So" dogma that limits free inquiry - the (Christian) seminarian is expected to believe without question, and questions are considered de facto evidence of non-belief - so my departure was a mutually agreed-upon decision. The other things I learned at seminary were to turn away from the worship of idols, to ignore the teachings of doomsday prophets, and to laugh at arbitrary dogma. Had I known that the seminary instructors expected rote memorization and uninspired repetition of their beliefs and doctrine, I would not have wasted those two years of my life.

Science has taught me that endlessly asking "Why?" is infinitely more rewarding in the knowledge it unfolds before me than any rote recitation of seemingly endless Bible verses in a vain attempt to spiritually "enlighten" me.

It shouldn't surprise you if I say I find your posts more sensible than some.


Right. Now, I do have the same BASIC knowledge most people in general have of science. I'm aware of how the scientific method works. I'm well versed in theories of sound and actual application of those theories (because they directly deal with the type of music I'm most interested in). Science reasoning was something I tested high on in college exams, second only to language skills. I tested out of having to take undergraduate science coursework, and none of it would even have really been relevant to my major. I've taken graduate courses in research methods, so I don't have a problem setting up a double blind test and using random sampling. I'm not a complete imbecile, just a little rusty. But, again, I have more advanced skills better suited to other areas that genuinely interest me much more than that.


It's not that, though. I can accept "cold harshness of such inquiry," and I have no problem dealing with outright insults. But I know the difference. There's nothing in an outright insult that advances science.

Yes, science is about discovering knowledge. But what kind of knowledge? Science is specifically a discipline of observing the natural world. The problem is misunderstanding what it IS by those who claim that it is more than that and, based on that misunderstanding, attacking claims that science isn't purposed to examine. My favorite example is Galileo. Galileo's key error was not in refuting Ptolemy, but in demanding that the church review its interpretation of certain scripture based on Galileo's evidence alone. Galileo was essentially making a theological call FROM science, and he was in no position to do this.

Using science to say "God doesn't exist" is an abuse in that the underlying (unproven) assumption is that because empirical discovery does not affirm God, God doesn't/can't exist. Empirical knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge out there. I would think most scientists in general would understand that and probably do.


Is there such a thing as "logic" or not? To find the answer to this, are you required to make unproven assumptions?


I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. I'm curious to know what denomination as that might explain why they hold the views they do--NOT that those views are justified, mind you. It would merely shed a bit more light on your experience.

I've pondered seminary myself, but I'm just not the charismatic leader type who can really "make a believer" out of someone. Churches that lack a centralized structure have a lot in common with "right to hire" states versus so-called "United" churches which are more "right to work," if you catch the analogy here. But I'm better suited to other kinds of things anyway for which seminary isn't really necessary to take the kind of leadership position I'd be successful in.

The only rationale I can see from your experience is that if someone is in seminary, it's generally expected that candidates buy into the specific teaching of that school. This isn't unlike my own secular undergraduate experience, which I hated: The idea was pretty much "do it THIS way, follow THESE rules, and do not question ANYTHING." That's not the worst thing in the world. If you agree then there's no problem. If I'd known my undergrad school was like that I'd have gone somewhere else and considered that after freshman year. Yet I toughed it out and finally got my degree. I got the impression that a typical 4-yr program doesn't really leave a lot of room for inquiry, at least not until upper-level courses. When I went on to grad school, I found my music profs had more in common with my philosophy teacher in that they were frustrated that the kids didn't really participate or ask questions. But the environment was more open to respectfully challenging teachers, and they seemed to love it. My choice of an advanced music school later on had directly to do with the artistic perspective of my mentor. If I didn't like it, I could have taken my business elsewhere. So I think maybe one possibility is that had you really cared about continuing in that direction, you probably could have found a better school suited to your inquisitiveness.

Since agreement with a school's teaching is part of the expectation, it's very important to really examine the school and teachers to make sure it's a good fit. I visited my grad school and sat in on various classes and was allowed to participate. I knew instantly I was home! I'm not nor have I ever been a seminary student or involved in formal religious study. I do better independently, anyway. Hebrew tradition has been debating Torah EXTENSIVELY and memorization of the oral tradition to facilitate rapid-fire issues of theology and daily life. Christianity started out this way but it seems this has gotten lost over the centuries. Part of the reason I do enjoy PPR is the ability to explore my beliefs in ways people where I live either lack the time for or lack any motivation for.

I can't recite Bible verses, either. I can if I'm prepared to attack a specific issue, but this is rarely the case. I've also known that just reading over the words does nothing. It doesn't "come alive" without some understanding of history, culture, and language. Taking a little bit of time trying to understand that better has really helped me much more than any kind of memorization and rote recitation.


One thing I struggled with for a long time was just trying to justify a lot of silly things I was taught as a small child. No church I've ever attended with any regularity was necessarily a bad one, and all of them are now a lot different from how they used to be. A proper understanding of scripture has helped me feel more secure about certain things. Even though I do believe the Bible and would never wish for people to reject the message of the gospels, I do wish I'd see more (dedicated Christians) asking "Why?" just as you do with science. The reason we don't is probably insecurity, but questioning doesn't always lead someone away from a belief and can actually reinforce that belief.

Evidence, Please?