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 The "What if...?" - hypothetical scenario

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by gnostic, Jun 23, 2022.

  1. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,689
    Ratings:
    +5,978
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I have sometimes use the "What if...?" question/scenario, in some philosophical discussion, but I recognized such scenarios are not necessarily true, because using the "What if..?" is just speculation of what could possibly happen...OR POSSIBLY NOT.

    It is only possibility of something that (speculatively) could or could not happen, especially speculating on the choice made that could result in different outcomes.

    However, I recognized that using this type of question, they are only speculations, they should not be treated as reality, and they are not "fact".

    But I have been at RF long enough, to come across many "What if...?", and I see that some members abuse this line of question/scenario.

    Not naming names.

    Some have used to prop their belief as if what they believe as "fact". These can easily be argue against using logic and common sense.

    But then there are those who like to use "What if...?", as a ploy or tactics, they used strawman.

    Strawman is a ploy, where one person supposedly refuting another person’s argument, even though that other person didn’t use, say or write that argument. So the first person was making false statement about the other person’s view.

    The strawman “what if...?” ruses have been frequently used by creationists to argue the case against Evolution.

    For instances, some of their favorites:

    • What if a chimp given birth to human, or what if a human given birth to chimp?
    • What if a cat given birth to pup, or what if a dog given birth to a kitten?

    These these 2 examples are very common here, at RF, used by creationists, to supposedly refuting and discrediting the theory of Evolution.

    A number of problems with these examples are -

    (A) that’s not Evolution work, because one species cannot give birth to another species from different totally different genus and family, hence they are making false claims as to how Evolution works;

    (B) I know of no biologists who would propose either of these examples being possible, so they are making false allegations that biologists would make such silly speculations.​

    With regarding to B, when you ask creationists to produce sources where biologists would use or agree with either examples, creationists would ignore or make some sorts of lame excuses, to avoid citing their sources.

    The “what if” is speculative, unless someone can actually show evidence that the positive or negative results are possible and probable.

    What do you think?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    I think your OP contains a carpet bombing of issues.
    Well, if you like to have philosophical discussions as stated, you cannot take off by concluding what is fact or not in advance.
     
  3. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,428
    Ratings:
    +6,677
    I think it's important to remember that creationism is a belief, not a science. And as a belief, there is no requirement or even expectation for objective analysis or consistency with data. You believe it and that's it.

    That's why creationists are baffled by our constant requests for them to back up their claims and provide evidence for their views. In their world of religious belief, that's not how things are done. Unlike scientific conferences, church sermons don't have mandatory Q&A sessions, for example.

    It really is a matter of two very different worlds.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Well, if you take modern cosmology, there are lots of simple belief dogmas too - they just call it hypothesis, theories and assumptions.
     
  5. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,428
    Ratings:
    +6,677
    Sorry, but I'm not going to merely take your word for it.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    You don´t have to either - just make your own cosmological research over standing theories.
     
  7. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    1,470
    Ratings:
    +813
    Religion:
    None
    Aren't you conflating the actions of individuals with the discipline of science? If an individual holds scientific hypotheses as dogmatic fact then they are in error. We are all human after all. :)

    If you mean to say the discipline of science treats speculation and hypotheses as dogmatic fact, then you would be in error.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    7,793
    Ratings:
    +9,579
    Religion:
    None
    I just left a what-if kind of post that I thought was helpful, when another poster took an antievolution stand. I asked, "what if evolution were falsified," where I argued that that still wouldn't support his belief in biblical creationism, which includes a god that would not lie or deceive man. What would happen if evolution were upended? We'd have to reinterpret the old evidence in the light of that finding, with only one conclusion being possible: a great deception by a force powerful enough to put all of that misleading evidence into the geological column and chromosomes, a force that would more likely be extraterrestrials than supernatural intelligent designers. And if it were a supernatural designer, it would be closer to the Christian chief demon in its lies and deception than the Christian god.

    None of those are dogma: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Dogma is indoctrinated, not taught, and if believed, is believed by faith. Science is taught, and being empirical, is the opposite of faith and requires none.
     
  9. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    No I´m not. Cosmological science has lots of beliefs which NEVER will be confirmed, starting with Newton´s gravitational force which nobody can explain by what dynamic means it should work - hence its just a belief on occult matters.
     
  10. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    I didn´t expect any other answer from you :)
     
  11. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,179
    Ratings:
    +697
    What if everything you believe is wrong?

    You only ask the question because you believe you understand science and science has an answer to everything.

    You are wrong on both counts.

    You are far too quick to discount other peoples' knowledge and beliefs.
     
    #11 cladking, Jun 23, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,179
    Ratings:
    +697
    Things like "ancient people were sun addled bumpkins' is axiomatic to science. That there exist four dimensions is axiomatic. That 2 + 2 = 4 is a given (derived from definitions) despite the fact that no two identical things exist. It is axiomatic that reductionistic science can answer any question in the long run and most believers "know" it already has. It is axiomatic that chaos does not need to be considered and that reality is a clockwork that obeys the laws of science. I could go on listing definitions and axioms that underlie modern beliefs but are probably wrong all day long. Most people think science is a manifestation of intelligence and that technology proves it.

    Dogma is the status quo whether it is enforced by gulag or velvet hammer. It is what every child begins learning on his parents' knees and must recite back to professors in college.

    Now days children are exposed to propaganda from a young age and science is taught as dogma. "Skeptic" once meant "non-believer" but it has come to mean "one who accepts propaganda and dogma without question".

    We live in frightening times. Things will get worse as we try to force reality and heretics to conform to our beliefs.
     
    #12 cladking, Jun 23, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,179
    Ratings:
    +697
    Indeed!

    You noticed that too.

    Everyone must bend to the will of whoever thinks they understand science. Pointing out anomalies is not only rude but now days it can be dangerous.

    Once the world had to bend to the will of those who believed they understood the Bible and we see how that worked. But the only tools of enforcement were racks, torture, and piles of dry kindling. Now we have weapons of mass destruction like carbon taxes and hydrogen bombs.

    What will the world look like 25 years after the purchase of science in a hostile takeover? We're close to finding out right now.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Just take Julian Assange who revealed lots of war crimes and was stupidly jailed for this excellent journalistic work.
    And for the time being, most - otherwise popular - public media is practicing censorship en masse regarding covid and the US/NATO made conditions which led up to the Russian intervention in Ukraine.
    Yes knowledge CAN indeed be dangerous on many levels, both personally and collectively.
     
    #14 Native, Jun 24, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2022
  15. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,689
    Ratings:
    +5,978
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Another 2 "strawman".

    A) It is not a question of belief, it is matter of understanding the evidence that science are built upon.

    Perhaps, one day someone will provide a better "alternative" theory, but such alternative must be tested on its own merits, and not simply because it is "new".

    Without evidence, it is just assumption and speculation, which don't even qualify as being hypothesis.

    B) I have never claimed that science has "answers" for everything.

    Sciences will always be ongoing process, and science will always require update and improvement - updating knowledge, updating methodology of testing...even in one like Evolution.

    All you are doing, is making another false claim.

    Stopping making up things. It is rather dishonest that you would make up things about me, things I have never claimed.
     
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,689
    Ratings:
    +5,978
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Being a journalist, don't give him immunity from prosecution, if Assange committed a crime.

    And Sweden wanted to arrest him for sexual assault. He skipped bail, hence committing another crime.

    I don't give damn about WikiLeak and espionage charge, because I don't particularly care about it, I wanted him prosecuted in Sweden, but Sweden has drop the charges, not because he was innocent.

    Personally I hoped he rot in jail, so I hoped that he do get extradited and charged in the US. I hoped that he never come home to Australia, because as far as I am concern, journalist or not, Assange is a piece of s###.
     
  17. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    As long as science only have assumptions, it IS a question of beliefs.
    I´m not surprised you take Cladkings comments as "false claims" as you don´t understand philosophical arguments and discussions in general.
     
  18. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Of course you have this attitude to Julian Assange as you usually and only count on what a diversity of authorities are telling you to think and say.

    It´s apparently quite OK with you that nations like the US does make covert and overt interventions in suverain countries, for instants just like with Iraq and all it´s US lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and an Al Qaeda which only came into Iraq AFTER the US left Iraq.

    What a pity and unconscious journalistic attitude to have against this brave man!
     
  19. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,689
    Ratings:
    +5,978
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I am not an American, Native. And I really hated Bush Junior's gut, because he drew Australian forces into the wars. I was already against the war in Iraq.

    Plus, I already was aware about the lies of WMD in Iraq, not because of Assange's leaked. I have never believed in the WMDs in any case, because I have always been against the war in Iraq.

    It wasn't the espionage charge that I wanted Assange to answer for, it was the one in Sweden that he should have been charged and prosecuted for, because I don't care about politics, especially American politics.

    Assange is a coward, because he skipped bail of the Sweden's extradition. But since Sweden don't want to charge & prosecute, then I hoped he do go to the US, because he got away from a crime committed in Sweden. They can put him away for life or shoot him, I don't care.
     
  20. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,224
    Ratings:
    +591
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    I don´t care what nationality you are.
    I don´t think Sweden would have relieved Assange if there was a real case, so you only have your own personal biases in this case.
    Iraq was just ONE of the many war crime examples leaked by Assange in WikiLeaks.
    This is utterly emotional nonsense!

    Just because Sweden didn´t have a case on Assange, he should according to you, go to US and even be jailed for 173 years or killed for revealing war crimes, just because you don´t like him?

    I am honestly stunned over your attitude here! And then as a journalist!?
     
Loading...