An Open Challenge To Creationists

[mikkel_the_dane]

But it seems so to everyone. You didn't answer my questions about doctors and engineers. In practice, do you trust them (and their intersubjectively verified evidence) with your life or are you true to your "scepticism" and just go with individual subjectivity?

Added: it's also worth pointing out that you seem to be convinced enough that you are actually talking to another person via the infernal contraptions of intersubjectively verified technology (based on intersubjectively verified science) to make it worth replying and (rather ironically) trying to convince them of your claims. Would you make the same effort to communicate by (say) Ouija board?

What you effectively are referring to is the objective part of reality in practice. But that is not all of reality.
A doctor can inform me about some accepts of reality, but can't tell me what I ought to do. The same with an engineer. But all of my life is not what they do.
There is no meaning, purpose, reason or logic out there in the objective part of reality for how to live an individual life. That ends in the subjective and not even the intersubjective will do. Inter-subjectively verified evidence can only get you so far.

Now stop playing "seems to". We can agree that we share parts of reality, but you can't reduce down all of reality to your inter-subjectively verified evidence.
The limit is here and that includes the supernatural.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
All you are trying to do, is to get me to subjectively to agree with me. So admit that.
I am an Aspie and I know what it means to be different. I have had to live my life in part against your common inter-subjectivity and it only goes so far and not all the way.
And no, I know how to deal with doctors. They are humans and they don't always get it right. They misdiagnosed me and only got it right later, because subjectivity is hard. A broken leg is easy. That is objective.
BTW My farther had several degrees related to engineering and even that sometimes fails when it hits the real messy world.

So yes, objectivity is easy, the fun starts with subjectivity.
I get what you are doing, but it is not that simple. There is no ToE for all of reality and no scientific measurement standard for good and bad. Not even an inter-subjective one with verified evidence.
I am not an creationist, but it is not that simple. Religion is within your model a natural behavior, so how can creationist do something wrong? What they do, is natural and not supernatural. You might not like it, but the universe doesn't care about that. Nor does it care about what I like or not.
In the end what creationists do, is a part of how the world/everything/reality/the universe works.
If what they do, was exactly like trying to fly solely with the usage of only their bodies from a great height, they would be dead, it seems.
But that is not all of reality; the inter-subjectively verified evidence.
What creationists do as creationists, is natural.

 

[blü 2]

Are you sure you represent the creationist position when you state, " all living things were created, substantially as they now exist................and not gradually evolved or developed'.

I have no interest in your challenge, but at least be sure you represent the creationist view, properly.

What in your view is the proper representation of the creationist view?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What in your view is the proper representation of the creationist view?

Here is one version.
Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You might be able to find other versions and shmogie may hold yet another one. The proper and correct definition of proper, correct and definition for those words and other words are such fun.
The verb "be" has 8 or 9 different usages, if I remember correctly and I might not even remember that correctly.

The proper version of a word is such fun.

 

[ratiocinator]

What you effectively are referring to is the objective part of reality in practice. But that is not all of reality.

But I'm not trying to claim that it is - neither am I trying to claim that science, engineering, and medicine are perfect - but they are the most effective means we have of dealing with the "objective part of reality in practice". What is relevant here is that the history of the world actually falls within the scope of that approach - it's that sort of question. Of course, if there is a trickster god who leaves false evidence, or, for that matter, I'm actually a Boltzmann brain, then the conclusion will be wrong, but it's the only attempt at an answer that makes any sense and it's exactly the approach everybody uses in practice in their everyday lives.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But I'm not trying to claim that it is - neither am I trying to claim that science, engineering, and medicine are perfect - but they are the most effective means we have of dealing with the "objective part of reality in practice". What is relevant here is that the history of the world actually falls within the scope of that approach - it's that sort of question. Of course, if there is a trickster god who leaves false evidence, or, for that matter, I'm actually a Boltzmann brain, then the conclusion will be wrong, but it's the only attempt at an answer that makes any sense and it's exactly the approach everybody uses in practice in their everyday lives.

Yes, in some sense and no, in another, because everyday life in not just inter-subjectively verified evidence.
And yes, the history of the world and religion fall within that. Religion is neither right nor wrong, it is a human behavior.
And if you were a Boltzmann Brain your conclusion wouldn't be wrong nor right. It would still be unknowable just as whether reality is natural or form God.
I am a skeptic. Don't forget that.

 

[blü 2]

Here is one version.
Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You might be able to find other versions and shmogie may hold yet another one. The proper and correct definition of proper, correct and definition for those words and other words are such fun.
The verb "be" has 8 or 9 different usages, if I remember correctly and I might not even remember that correctly.

The proper version of a word is such fun.

Thanks.

Dear old Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy! Bring back some agreeable memories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, you haven't gotten the memo, but your version of science was discovered around the 1940's not to work.

And yet, you're typing that nonsense on a marvelous piece of tech that likely uses wireless communication to your nonense in the form of 1s and 0s, at lightspeed, to some receiver who might encrypt it and send it to some satelite that orbits the world at 40.000 km/h, which then bounces that signal back to earth where it is decrypted again and stored in the database of this forum on some virtual pc somewhere in some datacenter (and everywhere in distributed data clusters) after which I can see read that nonsense after serving to the page that pulls it from the database and sends it to my computer at light speed, perhaps also through satelites.

But "science doesn't work".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet, you're typing that nonsense on a marvelous piece of tech that likely uses wireless communication to your nonense in the form of 1s and 0s, at lightspeed, to some receiver who might encrypt it and send it to some satelite that orbits the world at 40.000 km/h, which then bounces that signal back to earth where it is decrypted again and stored in the database of this forum on some virtual pc somewhere in some datacenter (and everywhere in distributed data clusters) after which I can see read that nonsense after serving to the page that pulls it from the database and sends it to my computer at light speed, perhaps also through satelites.

But "science doesn't work".

Science doesn't work on everything. It is a limited tool with limited usefulness.
As for verification as a method, it doesn't work.
There are other methods within science than verification.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but I won't rule it out. I just don't know. I believe differently, but this game of evidence I don't believe in. Neither your version of evidence or what the creationists do. So to me it is a game of beliefs.
It works for you believe as you do. It works for them to believe differently. And yet I can believe different than you and them. That tells me, that we are playing a game of beliefs.

So in your opinion, any proposed explanation about anything is just as likely or plausible as any other proposed explanation about that thing? No matter the evidence etc?

So the idea that we are being pushed down by undetectable unicorns as an explanation for gravity, is just as likely to you as the testable explanation of how mass generates gravitational fields that affect other masses?

You are making a complete BS argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And when I point out that it is maybe not that simple, you don't care. Okay. So you are only out to confirm your belief system and not test it. That is the same for creationists, BTW

Here's where your "argument" turns into BS.
How do you test a belief, if not through evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science doesn't work on everything

Nobody claims it does.

As for verification as a method, it doesn't work.

That totally depends on what exactly is in need of verification.

There are other methods within science than verification.

Verification isn't even a method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So in your opinion, any proposed explanation about anything is just as likely or plausible as any other proposed explanation about that thing? No matter the evidence etc?

So the idea that we are being pushed down by undetectable unicorns as an explanation for gravity, is just as likely to you as the testable explanation of how mass generates gravitational fields that affect other masses?

You are making a complete BS argument.

That is a feeling in you, but what ever the universe is either as fair or a trickster universe/God, it doesn't matter, because all that matters to you, is in you as a combination of reasons and feelings.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's where your "argument" turns into BS.
How do you test a belief, if not through evidence?

I do it as coherence not correspondence. You do a correspondence theory of truth in the end. I do coherence as an epistemological solipsist and not ontological solipsist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do it as coherence not correspondence. You do a correspondence theory of truth in the end. I do coherence as an epistemological solipsist and not ontological solipsist.

And now in plain english instead of this philosophical jargon parade?

I'll hand you a pre-assist...

For a belief or claim to register as "accurate" or "true", it needs to reflect actual reality.
So to test if a belief or claim is accurate or true, one would have to test it against reality.
Such a test would then yield evidence either in support or in contradiction to the belief or statement.

Do you agree or disagree with this? if you disagree, please define what you then mean by the term "accurate" or "true".
​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a feeling in you, but what ever the universe is either as fair or a trickster universe/God, it doesn't matter, because all that matters to you, is in you as a combination of reasons and feelings.

It's not a feeling. It's a conclusion based on the things your post.

When you basicly say that any idea is as good as the next because no idea can be demonstrated true with 100% certainty, then I call BS.

There are degrees of certainty and it is simply patently false that any idea is as good as the next - no matter the evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And now in english?

No. Look it up or don't.
Look up theories of truth or don't.
I am not going through that just as I don't demand of you that you explain everything in science.

Theories of truth are related to the philosophy of science and epistemology. You know how to do that, so figure it out yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not a feeling. It's a conclusion based on the things your post.

When you basicly say that any idea is as good as the next because no idea can be demonstrated true with 100% certainty, then I call BS.

There are degrees of certainty and it is simply patently false that any idea is as good as the next - no matter the evidence.

And that is subjective in you and a result of a combination of reasoning and feelings. You wouldn't call it BS, unless there was feelings involved.

Look here:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not a feeling. It's a conclusion based on the things your post.

When you basicly say that any idea is as good as the next because no idea can be demonstrated true with 100% certainty, then I call BS.

There are degrees of certainty and it is simply patently false that any idea is as good as the next - no matter the evidence.

Certainty is not relevant in some forms of science.

Again for the bold:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. Look it up or don't.
Look up theories of truth or don't.
I am not going through that just as I don't demand of you that you explain everything in science.

Theories of truth are related to the philosophy of science and epistemology. You know how to do that, so figure it out yourself.

I think I edited my post while you were already answering it.

When you say "x is true / accurate", then what is it exactly that you mean by "true / accurate", it not "properly reflects reality"?

And if you agree that what it means is "properly reflecting reality", how can one see if an idea properly reflects reality, if not by testing the statement against reality - the result of which would yield evidence in support or in contradiction of the statement being tested?

How do you figure out if a statement accuratly reflects reality, if not by actually testing it against reality? Which is to say, through evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think I edited my post while you were already answering it.

When you say "x is true / accurate", then what is it exactly that you mean by "true / accurate", it not "properly reflects reality"?

And if you agree that what it means is "properly reflecting reality", how can one see if an idea properly reflects reality, if not by testing the statement against reality - the result of which would yield evidence in support or in contradiction of the statement being tested?

How do you figure out if a statement accuratly reflects reality, if not by actually testing it against reality? Which is to say, through evidence?

Okay, here is a wall of text:
Coherentism in Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Coherentism in Epistemology
Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another. Typically, this coherence is taken to involve three components: logical consistency, explanatory relations, and various inductive (non-explanatory) relations. Rival versions of coherentism spell out these relations in different ways. They also differ on the exact role of coherence in justifying beliefs: in some versions, coherence is necessary and sufficient for justification, but in others it is only necessary.

This article reviews coherentism’s history beginning in the last quarter of the twentieth century, and it marks off coherentism from other theses. The regress argument is the dominant anti-coherentist argument, and it bears on whether coherentism or its chief rival, foundationalism, is correct. Several coherentist responses to this argument will be examined. A taxonomy of the many versions of coherentism is presented and followed by the main arguments for and against coherentism. After these arguments, which make up the main body of the article, a final section considers the future prospects of coherentism.