Reason for religious war

[questfortruth]

it is not a logical conclusion.

Look, how correct I can write! It is perfect English in the file below. I can if I really wish to produce a perfect text!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. The most ancient method of Science is Methodological Naturalism: all divine references are not scientific.

I can't make heads or tails of this statement.
Word salad.

 

[questfortruth]

I can't make heads or tails of this statement.
Word salad.

Do you know that is

Methodological Naturalism?

 

[Altfish]

No. The most ancient method of Science is Methodological Naturalism: all divine references are not scientific.

I've highlighted the relevant words in your comment.
Methodolocal Naturalism is now only practiced by a few fringe scientists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know that is

Methodological Naturalism?

Yes I know what methodological naturalism is.
To look for natural causes for natural effects.

ie, to not assume that undetectable magical graviton pixies are fiddling around with gravitational forces.

 

[firedragon]

Evolution is the reason/ answer that Creationism is false.

No its not.

And you have not given any reason why evolution makes creationism false. I think you are mixing creationism with Young Earthers wave. If not, how does it make it false?

Provide proper reasoning please. If you dont want to that's fine. Its your prerogative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No its not.

Yes, it is.

Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

And you have not given any reason why evolution makes creationism false.

They are mutually exclusive. Man wasn't created from dirt and the woman wasn't created from the man's rib, if humans evolved.

I think you are mixing creationism with Young Earthers wave. If not, how does it make it false?

Creationism as a term concerns the creation of species from scratch.
When someone identifies as a "creationist", the opposition to evolution is implied.
Someone who accepts evolution as the explanation for how species come about, is not a creationist.

Provide proper reasoning please. If you dont want to that's fine. Its your prerogative.

Use terms correctly. If you don't want to that's fine. It's your prerogative.

 

[Altfish]

No its not.

And you have not given any reason why evolution makes creationism false. I think you are mixing creationism with Young Earthers wave. If not, how does it make it false?

Provide proper reasoning please. If you dont want to that's fine. Its your prerogative.

I ask you again, what sort of evidence will you accept?

 

[firedragon]

I ask you again, what sort of evidence will you accept?

Any kind of evidence to prove that evolution proves creationism wrong.

 

[Altfish]

Any kind of evidence to prove that evolution proves creationism wrong.

So, let's start defining what Creationism is...

Am I correct that it means that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. (ie God did it)
Which in turn means that Humans have not evolved from apes, and earlier from simpler forms of life.

I would like to confirm that you agree with that before I go on again with further explanation
Also am I allowed to post videos as part of my proof, videos that will explain things a lot better than I can?

 

[firedragon]

Am I correct that it means that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. (ie God did it)

Not really. But somewhat correct. Nevertheless, we can leave it at that. No problem.

Which in turn means that Humans have not evolved from apes, and earlier from simpler forms of life.

Not at all. There is no conflict. In fact, there were many theists who propagated evolution in the past. So I definitely dont agree with that.

 

[metis]

if I am dead wrong, then how was I able to prove Riemann Hypothesis?

That has nothing to do with the ToE, plus a "hypothesis" by definition has not and is not proved.

Riemann hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[Altfish]

Not really. But somewhat correct. Nevertheless, we can leave it at that. No problem.



Not at all. There is no conflict. In fact, there were many theists who propagated evolution in the past. So I definitely dont agree with that.

So ... you do not believe in Creationism.

You also failed to answer my last question about posting videos as evidence.

 

[firedragon]

So ... you do not believe in Creationism.

I do. Maybe I will cut and paste my sentence once more so that you understand it.

"Not at all. There is no conflict. In fact, there were many theists who propagated evolution in the past. So I definitely dont agree with that."

You also failed to answer my last question about posting videos as evidence.

I think you are desperately looking for an opportunity to say "you failed" to someone. Anyway, sorry, if you just post some video I dont consider it a good or decent response. Its better that you explain yourself what you mean. But I dont own this forum or you Altfish so again, its your prerogative.

Also let me remind you, that creationism is not necessarily Your Earth Creationism. So if you are conflating both, please try and understand.

 

[Altfish]

I do. Maybe I will cut and paste my sentence once more so that you understand it.

"Not at all. There is no conflict. In fact, there were many theists who propagated evolution in the past. So I definitely dont agree with that."



I think you are desperately looking for an opportunity to say "you failed" to someone. Anyway, sorry, if you just post some video I dont consider it a good or decent response. Its better that you explain yourself what you mean. But I dont own this forum or you Altfish so again, its your prerogative.

Also let me remind you, that creationism is not necessarily Your Earth Creationism. So if you are conflating both, please try and understand.

I'll leave you to it, as always the goalposts keep moving.

When you have decided what I have to give evidence against, let me know because i certainly don't have a clue.

I don't know where you got your ideas about 'you failed' from but I'm not going there.

 

[firedragon]

I'll leave you to it, as always the goalposts keep moving.

Sure of course. Since your main aim is to tell others that they are "moving the goalpost" and that they are "failing" and what not, even if you dont have a loophole, you will try to create one. So please go ahead.

When you have decided what I have to give evidence against, let me know because i certainly don't have a clue.

You said evolution debunks creationism or that the universe was created. So that's why I ask for an explanation how that is so.

I don't know where you got your ideas about 'you failed' from but I'm not going there.

From you.

You won't engage in proper conversation Altfish. So I shall take my leave.

If you like, you could engage here. Link to a new post below.

#1

 

[Heyo]

What can you say about my logical conclusion:

1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.

Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.

It's an equivocation fallacy, even though a pretty good hidden one.
"God" in 1. is an undefined entity. Science isn't interested in undefined things.
"God" in 2. is given a definition, i.e. "acts on nature".

 

[Valjean]

How one can ignore God if there would be no God? If there is God, then God is surely proven.

Who ever said there was no god? I'm just saying "there is no god" isn't one of the factors science uses in evaluating evidence or drawing conclusions.

Anything can be ignored. Auto mechanics ignore the Easter Bunny controversy while making engine diagnostics or replacing water pumps.
Unless this god controversy directly relates to the phenomenon being investigated, I'd expect scientists to ignore it.

"If there is God, then God is surely proven." What?! Do you know what non sequitur means? How does this make any sense? Everything that exists must needs be already proven?
If life exists on Mars, then life on Mars is therefore proven?
"Proven?" This isn't a mathematical equation.

Quest, you play fast and loose with terms like evidence, reason, logic and proof. You think in non sequiturs.

1. Science does not deal with God, this is the definition of the word Science: Scientists follow closely the methods of Science, the main and most old of which is Methodological Naturalism.
2. If God exists, then He influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation.
3. Science deals with absolutely all nature: Science is interested in all natural things in our Universe.

This has all been explained to you. Did you miss it?
As soon as science finds evidence of a god influence, it will investigate it. Thus far, it hasn't even found a need for any supernatural influence.

1. Evolution is Science.
2. Science is not interested in God.
3. Thus, theistic evolution is not science.
4. God, if exists, acts on the physical world (at least at the moment of creating the world),
5. Thus, God does not exist, according to Science.
6. But I am sure, God exists.

Thick as a brick....

Actually, it has been, such as studies on whether praying for someone actually works.

Link?

 

[Valjean]

[Valjean said: ↑
One does not reject god. One ignores God.]

Lots and lots of people do it on a daily basis. Theists.

Do what? Ignore God, or reject him?
Either way, what's your point?

 

[firedragon]

[Valjean said: ↑
One does not reject god. One ignores God.]

Do what? Ignore God, or reject him?
Either way, what's your point?

Point? There is no "point"?

Theists have a working framework in many areas including science and literature where they ignore God as a working framework. Now we call it methodological naturalism.