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 Foundations of Genesis Apologetics

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Subduction Zone, Oct 21, 2021.

  1. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    8,656
    Ratings:
    +2,150
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Take #2: importance is in the mind and has no objective referent. If there were no humans there wouldn't be a word like importance. The same with the word "I". If you don't believe in "I", is goes away.
     
  2. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,723
    Ratings:
    +3,524
    Religion:
    none
    What we call reality doesn't go away no matter what. Prove me wrong: make gravity go away for you and just fly through the air unaided.
    Again, I couldn't give a damn. It's worthless philosophising that gets you nowhere. You're just as stuck with the 'real world' and its behaviour as I am, and that is the arena in which science works, and works for you just as much as it does for me. That is inter-subjective verification, which, as Popper says, is a good definition of 'objective'.

    Nobody can make their fairytale gods as 'real' as that. Trying to drag the 'real world' into being subjective too doesn't make the obvious difference go away.
     
  3. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    8,656
    Ratings:
    +2,150
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    I would still like scientific evidence for the bold one. Please find a proper scientific site and give a link.

    That you can't understand that we do the subjective differently and don't disagree about the objective in the everyday world is your problem, not mine.
    So again, I like intersubjective verification of the bold one.

    Edit: Popper was a philosopher.
     
  4. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,723
    Ratings:
    +3,524
    Religion:
    none
    It was a direct observation that no amount of stubborn subjectivism will make the 'real world' go away.
    You can do the subjective any way you want, but science still actually does work in the 'real world', just like gods and leprechauns don't.
    I know. But (from what I've read of him) he was actually saying something useful.
     
  5. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    8,656
    Ratings:
    +2,150
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Again that is something subjective so it is not a part of the real world. Please in external sensory words, quantitative words and referencing a scientific site give evidence of it being useful.
     
  6. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,723
    Ratings:
    +3,524
    Religion:
    none
    Are you actually aware of what you're doing here? You started out by making the statement that science is "a set of beliefs, that seems to work". I've explained how that is not the case and that it actually does work, and, instead of dealing with it, you've just ignored it and keep focusing on trying to treat everything I say as if it was science (no matter how obviously it isn't).

    I should have learned from my previous experience that it's useless trying to have a rational conversation with you, my bad. :oops:
     
  7. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    8,656
    Ratings:
    +2,150
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Like how you use feelings. Are they objective to you? Based on verifiable science?

    Ohh, it must be hard that some of us don't accept your subjective values as objective.
    Yes, science is useful, but that is not science.
    https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

    So here is some quotes for you by Popper:
    • Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification. ...
    • No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude. ...
    • Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
    By Google.


    The second one is fun, because it is based on observation of humans in reality, yet describe something which according to you is not a part of reality. So how could Popper observe something, which is not in reality? Can you answer that?
    BTW the 3rd one also applies to the claim, that science can give us paradise.
     
  8. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,723
    Ratings:
    +3,524
    Religion:
    none
    Take note.
    Ask for you money back from the mind-reading course.
     
  9. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    8,656
    Ratings:
    +2,150
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    How do you keep answer me, because I am not in the real reality as it is all in my mind, right? Where are we with our different beliefs about useful if not in reality. Are you so irrational, that you believe the irrational as different ways of using an other brain than yours is not a part of the world?

    Where are all that you believe in, which goes away when you don't believe in, if not in the world. In the non-world??? Where is the non-world? Or not in reality. Your quote by Philip K. Dick requires a non-reality for beliefs not in reality and not about reality. So I am in non-reality, Fair and well, and since you are in reality, how can you know about me, if I am in non-reality with my beliefs, which are not a part of reality.

    Where am I and how do you know that, if I am not in the world? Where am I? How do you know about me? How can you keep answering me, if I am not in the world? How do your Internet communication reach me and I can tell that it is absurd that you are using a science fiction writer to make quotes about reality. You are even worse that some religious people. You use a a science fiction writer as a guide to what science is about. He is not even a philosopher and the quote is rubbish.

    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” So where is that which goes away if you stop believing in it. It requires existence for you to believe in it, because you actually believe in it, yet it is not in reality. So where is it?
     
  10. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,723
    Ratings:
    +3,524
    Religion:
    none
    Wrong. Bored now, can't be bothered. What I've said is simple enough. If you don't get it, you don't. :shrug:
     
  11. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    39,163
    Ratings:
    +16,885
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    No. Science is a methodology, a tool, not a belief.

    You can get philosophical, but it's not science itself.
     
  12. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,889
    Ratings:
    +4,781
    Religion:
    ?
    But, in the end, you still react to the same world that I am experiencing - the same base reality that has been shown in trillions upon quadrillions of ways to be "something" that is consistent between two actors given fairly even perceptive capabilities within a given arena. You still take a crap when you need to, in other words, for all your talk that you don't necessarily believe that we are actually taking craps. So all your talk is just that... talk. Empty except to simply relate that you accept anything and everything tentatively - which is all ANY of us do. It just isn't useful to go around constantly working on the assumption that nothing is worth believing in. It isn't useful. Your outlook on life and reality isn't useful. Feel free to stop blabbing about it at any time.
     
  13. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,766
    Ratings:
    +513
    Looks like Aron Ra was triggered, lol.

    But seriously, it's a very similar question that many kids will ask their parents at some point as they learn about theories of evolution: Did we really evolve from _(your favorite animal here)_?

    And there is only one truthful answer: To say what you actually believe.

    Everything else - doesn't matter if it's Evolution or Creationism or Space Aliens - would be a lie.
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    47,980
    Ratings:
    +29,458
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sorry, but "kinds" is a worthless garbage term. And I do not think that you quite understand what a lie is. If the parents say that we are not the product of evolution it may not be a lie but it is clearly wrong. As the story goes in the video that Aron was criticizing it looks like the parents lied towards the end. They knew that what they were saying is nonsense but they did so anyway to make their son feel better.
     
  15. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,723
    Ratings:
    +3,524
    Religion:
    none
    What you believe is not necessarily true. If you're going to answer with a belief based on anything but evidence, it would be dishonest to not say that it was just a faith position. The truthful answer is to say that we have overwhelming evidence that life (including humans) evolved.
    No, giving them a conclusion based on the evidence that we have, is not a lie.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,052
    Ratings:
    +5,447
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Methodological Naturalism is a philosophy, as well as all forms of Metaphysics.

    Both use epistemology (philosophy of knowledge), but how Metaphysics and Methodological Naturalism approach natural phenomena, differed greatly.

    The differences are that Metaphysics don’t require testing any of their explanations, don’t require evidence, don’t require experiments. Hence Scientific Method isn’t important, evidence and experiments aren’t important to Metaphysics.

    All Metaphysics required, are abstract explanations of phenomena, and applying the abstract First Principle to what exist.

    There lies the problem with Metaphysics, relying on abstract concepts, and never testing these abstract concepts, hence not Metaphysics isn’t science.

    Methodological Naturalism, by itself, isn’t science, but it does tell us, how scientists should approach natural phenomena, steps required to objectively determine if the concept is true or not true.

    These required steps involved
    1. Falsifiability,
    2. Scientific Method, and
    3. Peer Review.
    The whole thing required to investigate natural phenomena, by formulating a model (eg hypothesis) to explain WHAT it is, HOW does it work, and then develop methodology as to how, where and when to test the model, and the only way to test these hypotheses are through observational evidence.

    Evidence are the only ways to objectively determine if the hypothesis succeeds or fails:
    • if it is true and probable, or
    • if it is false and improbable.
    Evidence can either be discovered in uncontrolled environment, thus fieldwork, or in controlled environments, like in a laboratory where experiments are employed to find the evidence.

    Evidence is real, and part of natural phenomena. Evidence are used to test the model, and determine which model is science and which model isn’t science.

    And sciences, especially natural science and physical science, required evidence, not “proof”, to determine validity of the hypothesis.

    As I have been telling philosophers and creationists for years, evidence and proof are not the same things. Science don’t prove or disprove models, they test models.

    Proof are merely logical model, like mathematical equations. Maths and mathematical equations are useful in science and you can see them being used in physics, including astrophysics, but they are not evidence themselves.

    These equations, like the explanations and predictions in a hypothesis, must be all tested. So if, the evidence disagree with the equations, then the equations (or proofs) in the hypothesis are wrong, not the evidence.

    You seemed to be confusing proof with evidence.

    None of the approach used in Methodological Naturalism is required in Metaphysics, because evidence isn’t important in Metaphysics.

    Science required evidence, not abstract metaphysical deduction and a priori.

    Deductive reasoning is a useful method in logic, but it has limitations, and it still very much subjective, and people being humans, can make mistakes in their reasoning and derive at the wrong conclusions, and people, especially philosophers can be biased.

    To me, modern Metaphysics are mostly useless in science; Metaphysics is overrated philosophy, and the application of Metaphysics is limited.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,766
    Ratings:
    +513
    I think we agree that if the parents think that what they are saying is nonsense, then they are lying. But any sort of contention that they are lying if they tell their children things that they honestly believe just because it doesn't happen to be accepted science is bull****.

    Of course what people believe is not necessarily factually correct. And parents certainly are free to educate their children according to their faith-based beliefs. And parents don't need any evidence to say that they honestly don't know the answer to a question.

    I wouldn't assume that parents are all informed about the evidence. Although there are parents who would answer the child's question with a full explanation of the Theory of Evolution, there are going to be parents that don't know the Theory of Evolution, parents that have an incomplete knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, parents that might want the child to explore and figure things out himself, parents who reject the Theory of Evolution, parents that have various other explanations that they sincerely believe, etc. And, despite your objections in the name of science, it's not really appropriate to hold all these various parents to the standard of calling them liars if they fail to give a scientific explanation of reality to their children when their children ask them questions. It might even be a good idea to let your children know that just because something is on TV, it doesn't automatically make it true.

    I don't think the Theory of Evolution is going to make or break your child's faith in God. Children run around pretending to be rabbits just for fun. But having your child grow up to know that you deliberately lied to him so that he would grow up to be religious doesn't strike me as a virtuous path to a healthy future mental state. In that sense, I could agree with Aron Ra. After all, Aron Ra is merely asserting what he believes to be true.
     
  18. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    1,838
    Ratings:
    +1,070
    Religion:
    None
    Is believing the world is flat and at the centre of the universe, no different than believing it is not flat, and not at the centre of the universe?

    Because if there is a difference, then that suggests to me that there are different types of belief, where some are based on objective evidence and others not, and the amount of objective evidence would seem to be a good indicator of how well the belief reflects reality. For the record I don't just not believe the world is flat, I believe it is not flat, as it is a falsifiable premise. As of course are all scientific ideas including evolution, since it is a basic requirement of the method.

    Of course I'm just a middling intellect with a mediocre education, so it's possible the main thrust of this discourse is lost on me.
     
  19. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    8,656
    Ratings:
    +2,150
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    There are objective evidence in some cases and not in other cases, therefore...

    There is a difference between X and Y, so...
     
  20. Sheldon

    Sheldon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    1,838
    Ratings:
    +1,070
    Religion:
    None
    Do such parents bother with doctors or dentists? Do they take their car to a faith healer when it breaks down? Do they get a carpenter to fix their central heating boiler when it breaks down?

    I find it hard to believe then that they don't see the dishonesty in using religion to cherry pick scientific facts. So yes, it is their choice, but how honest they are being is open to interpretation. If one of their children is ill, would they want the best medical care? Only medical research is entirely predicated on the fact of species evolution and shared ancestry, so again they can pretend it isn't, but that seems like wilful ignorance to me, and that seems dishonest. Their choice of course, like not going on a cruise just in case the world really is flat, but teaching your child the world is flat, even if you believe it to be so, seems dishonest to me. I feel desperately sorry for children who have their education ruined in such a way.

    Maybe I'm missing something?
     
Loading...