Noncognitivism vs Creationism (Abiogenesis, blood, evolution, genesis, scriptures)

[Jayhawker Soule]

The statement { G ::= God Exists } is often viewed as either True or False. There is, however, a third alternative.

The noncognitivist response asserts that { G } is "cognitively meaningless", similar to statements such as { N ::= zpjwtb exists }, i.e., it is not a coherent proposition. The question is, how does this relate to Creationism?

As Ceredwin018 noted, creationists spend an enormous amount of time and effort thowing pebbles at the edifice of science, but offer little in its place. Worse, they pretend to be something other than the born-again proselytizers that they truly are, posing instead as some alternative voice of reason in a particular area of science.

• "Who started the Bib Bang?" they ask.
• "What about abiogenesis?" they query.
• "Prove macroevolution!" they demand.

But, given the oportunity to make their case, the best they can do is say: zpjwtb did it.

Very well, but what is a zpjwtb? So, for example:

• Is zpjwtb single or plural - and by what reliable methodology do we acquire and confirm this information?
• Is zpjwtb interested or disinterested - and by what reliable methodology do we acquire and confirm this information?
• Is zpjwtb good or evil - and by what reliable methodology do we acquire and confirm this information?
• Is zpjwtb honest or dishonest - and by what reliable methodology do we acquire and confirm this information?

In fact, the sole attribute that can be legitimately assigned to zpjwtb is that zpjwtb was the cause. Actually, we know even less, since no evidence has been offered to suggest that the zpjwtb responsible for the Big Bang is the same thing as that which was responsible for life.

In other words, scratch a creationist and what you get at best is "reality was caused by that which caused reality" and, at worst, an assertion which is cognitively meaningless. This is not information, but a token - a placeholder - indicating the lack of it. So far the creationist has done nothing but waste our time. Fine; we're here voluntarily. It's when the creationist substitutes God for zpjwtb in an effort to suggest a bridge from tautology to theism that something intellectually bankrupt occurs.

[The Voice of Reason]

I think you have nailed it.
Of course, we should expect to get some real SOLID debate from the more discerning minds.
Great post - well thought out, and very well written.

TVOR

[Scott1]

Yes, TVOR, I agree. Very few words I had to look up.

Thanks Deut... I'm able to follow your posts lately.... does that mean I'm getting smarter.... or have you recently sustained a head injury?

Is there a book where I can get more information about zpjwtb ?

[The Voice of Reason]

SOG, my good man, you are a jewel.

TVOR

[Pah]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Yes, TVOR, I agree. Very few words I had to look up.

Thanks Deut... I'm able to follow your posts lately.... does that mean I'm getting smarter.... or have you recently sustained a head injury?

Is there a book where I can get more information about zpjwtb ?

Try the Invisible Pink Unicorn scriptures.

Bob

[Ceridwen018]

In other words, scratch a creationist and what you get at best is "reality was caused by that which caused reality" and, at worst, an assertion which is cognitively meaningless. This is not information, but a token - a placeholder - indicating the lack of it.

Excellent post, Duet, I completely agree. This part is my favorite.

[Scuba Pete]

I'm a creationist, but I believe in evolution.

You have confused a subset of creationists with the entire set. Being a Creationist does not neccesarily constitute being an anti-evolutionist, though they seem to be in the majority.

Consequently, most debates about creationism vs evolution ends up comparing apples to donuts.

There can be a debate about HOW things were created: instantaneously or evolved.

There can be a debate over by Who or WHY things were created: Nature Vs God

But mixing the two up just leads to circular reasonings that silts out the pool.

As for proving whether there is a God or not through either logic or empiricism, it just ain't gonna happen.

Finally... please don't scratch me. Sharks love blood.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

You have confused a subset of creationists with the entire set.

No, I have not.

[HelpMe]

did you tell your daughter her husband is intellectually bankrupt?