1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured An open challenge to evolutionists.

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Iymus, Feb 23, 2020.

  1. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Take 2:
    Irrationalism | philosophy

    I am not a strong irrationalist. I am the weak kind. Know the limits of reason and logic and the limits of feelings and combine them both.
    You do that differently than me and I do so in reverse.
     
  2. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Take 3: You to the effect of: I use reason, logic and objective empirical evidence on everything, except when I don't and I use opinion and everybody else should hold my opinions, because I don't like other opinions. They are not logical.

    You have give the evidence for a reductio ad absurdum in the broad sense yourself and you don't notice it.
    QED
     
  3. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,208
    Ratings:
    +1,471
    Religion:
    none
    Oh look, another straw man!
     
  4. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, so you can explain everything with the correct opinions and all other opinions are foolish as a fact. The joke is that this not a fact and it is the limit of science.
    Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

    Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
    This opinion of yours are not based on fact or knowledge.
    So you have a belief without fact or knowledge. That is faith. To have faith means you are religious.
    You have beliefs about something as part of the universe, which are without fact or knowledge. Thus you are religious.
     
  5. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    6,867
    Ratings:
    +5,112
    Well I mean this isn’t like a lab or whatever. But maybe a tech savvy science nerd has some of that stuff up on YouTube?
     
  6. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    20,414
    Ratings:
    +14,971
    Religion:
    None
    There ya go, the creationist cop out, cannot find an answer that suits the ego so create strawmen to cover the gaps.

    I was discussing the universe, you brought inhumanity to attempt shifting the argument and failed miserably.
     
  7. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    20,414
    Ratings:
    +14,971
    Religion:
    None
    You are the one misrepresenting my words, don't try blaming @ratiocinator for you mistake
     
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Mathematics and logic are used by humans to describe the universe and predict how it will behave. We say the universe is logical to the extent that we succeed in that description. And, so far, we have been very successful in that.

    People can be irrational because their brains/minds attempt to describe the universe, but often do so based on very incomplete information or from a biased perspective.

    Where's the contradiction in that?
     
  9. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    That humans are in the universe as irrational and thus a part of the universe is irrational.
    You have just stated a fact. Big Bang -> Evolution -> Humans -> Irrational. Thus a part of the universe is irrational.
     
  10. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Yes, of course people conjecture and debate how that compressed plasma got there.

    But that debate as to origins does not mean there is any doubt that it was there.

    And, the options for how it got there have to obey the laws of physics, or some reasonable extension of those we currently know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    I am obey the laws of physics and yet I am irrational. The laws of physics cause irrational. Please explain that and don't explain away. You know how the universe works. Now explain this: The laws of physics cause irrationality.

    Big Bang (exists) -> evolution (exists) - humans (exist) -> moral convention (don't strictly exist). How did that happen? Please explain that?!!
     
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    What you seem to miss is that a universe that works under logical laws can have subsystems that give out illogical information. You are confusing two different levels of how the universe works.

    The base level has no intelligence, or motivations, or thoughts, or desires. No fundamental particle desires or thinks.

    But very large combinations of those fundamental particles *can* have thoughts, desires, etc. And *those* thoughts, desires, etc, can be misrepresentations of the world around them. And that is what leads to irrational thoughts by those complex combinations.

    It's lie a computer: the workings of a computer are logically based, but the output of that computer may not describe reality well. Two different levels.
     
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    More specifically, the rational laws of physics allow for large combinations of fundamental particles that an develop internal representations of aspects of the rest of the universe. But those representations, being based on local interactions, are always incomplete and usually based on the specifics of how things happened in the past. In particular, the interpretation of the information being collected may differ strongly from reality. When that leads to bad decisions (of these large collections that can think), we say the result is irrational.

    Which part? There was a gap of about 9 billion years between the Big Bang and the first life (evolution). There was another gap of almost 4.5 billion years between that first life and humans. And moral conventions are a result of humans being social creatures.
     
  14. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    And those levels are connected, right?!! Or are we doing ontological dualism. The universe works under logical laws which cause irrational(illogical) thoughts in humans.
    You are getting so close to dualism, that you might want to check your own thinking.
     
  15. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Bad is not science. That is a combination of feelings and useful and that is in humans. Check your words and your thinking. Or show me the international scientific measurement standard for bad and which instruments to use.
    Bad is not science!!!

    You are not doing science there.
     
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    OK, the point is that the thoughts and decisions are based on only a small subset of information available. And that means that decisions are made that do not have the intended consequences. When this happens once, we usually just call it a mistake. When it continues to happen, we call this irrational.
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Of course they are connected. But they are connected at the level of dynamics, not on the level of information. Information is another result of the action of the laws, but it not always accurate nor is it ever complete. And this incompleteness leads to decisions whose results are contrary to the goals.
     
  18. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    So you can do everything for all the intended consequences including morality and useful using only science for all of your life as a human, also when you are not doing STEM.
    Nice! So me your scientific peer-reviewed theory of that. Even if it is behind a pay-wall. Then I will find a way anyhow.

    Human don't only collect information as per science. We do a lot of other things:
    Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

    That is the limit of your science.
    You don't live all your life as a scientist and it doesn't matter that you are a scientist, because you are now among the rest of us. And I don't play nice, because I don't accept your claims, just because you are a scientist. You don't hold authority with science over humans as humans. And I know how to check that. I can't use science for all of my life and neither can you.
     
  19. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +472
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    And again a non-scientific word. A goal is a human word as such and not just science.
     
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,118
    Ratings:
    +14,631
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I never said that science deals with everything. In fact, I agree that it cannot solve problems of aesthetics or morality, for example. It can *inform* such problems, but it cannot solve those problems.

    But the reason that it cannot solve problems of aesthetics or morality is that both of these are *opinions* and not facts about the universe. It *may* be possible for science to get to the place where it can say *who* will find *what* art aesthetically pleasing. Or *who* will make a moral judgement in a certain way. But that is different than saying science can determine what is aesthetic or moral.

    Ultimately, *we* get to decide what is aesthetic (pleasing to us) and what is moral (what we think people should do).
     
Loading...