In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.
Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.
little evidence? Are you sure?
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.
Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.
Using your logic, it is irrational to suggest that unicorns do not exist merely because there is no evidence for their existence.
A creator does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of his existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Unicorns do not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of their existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Magic does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of its existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
You talk about the irrationality of denying the existence of a creator, but you're the one using a different logical process when determining the existence of a universal creator than you would use on determining the existence of any other fictional thing - all for no apparent reason.
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 28, 2016, 12:18:56 PM
Using your logic, it is irrational to suggest that unicorns do not exist merely because there is no evidence for their existence.
A creator does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of his existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Unicorns do not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of their existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
Magic does not exist. How do we know? There is no evidence of its existence, and the evidence cannot be acquired.
You talk about the irrationality of denying the existence of a creator, but you're the one using a different logical process when determining the existence of a universal creator than you would use on determining the existence of any other fictional thing - all for no apparent reason.
No, not quite. First of all irrationality would be saying there is evidence for ¬P but believe P anyway. Arrationality is saying there is no evidence for P but believe P anyway for some proposition P.
I am saying that both propositions are equally arrational because there isn't a sufficient amount of evidence to completely rule out creationism, nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.
You forced me to look up a word - good job. And since you misspelled that word, I will assume that you are not real familiar with it either.
So, arational means: not based on or governed by reason.
So I am confused how it is reasonable to ASSUME that there exists a creator in the absence of any evidence for one whatsoever? A belief governed by reason - has to be one supported by evidence, IMO. It seems neither rational or reasonable to simply assert the existence of a non-provable being or thing. To borrow a phrase from a famous philosopher - I can assert that their is a china pot orbiting somewhere beyond Mars - and that it is small enough to escape detection from even our most powerful telescopes. Do you find my assertion likely? There is just as much evidence (not popular support - but that is a different metric) for my assertion as there is for yours.
Quote
Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.
You are quite wrong on this assertion. Science has not debunked any gods. What science has done is to limit the scope of what a god could or could not do. In the process, the storyline for god keeps receding. He is now some creature which has always existed - but is not real. He is outside of space/time - yet interacts within it. The earth has gone from its role as the central orbital hub - to just another planet orbiting a vanilla sun in a galaxy that looks just like billions of others.
God is begin defeated by science... but science is not in the business of defeating god.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:25:33 PM
No, not quite. First of all irrationality would be saying there is evidence for ¬P but believe P anyway. Arrationality is saying there is no evidence for P but believe P anyway for some proposition P.
I am saying that both propositions are equally arrational because there isn't a sufficient amount of evidence to completely rule out creationism, nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.
Hm. So probability is even for either scenario? I don't agree with that in the slightest. Scientific theory is never based on complete proof, it's based on probability.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 28, 2016, 12:27:25 PM
Hm. So probability is even for either scenario? I don't agree with that in the slightest. Scientific theory is never based on complete proof, it's based on probability.
No. Science is based on empirical evidence and there is not a sufficient amount for both subsets of the dichotomy.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:30:22 PM
No. Science is based on empirical evidence and there is not a sufficient amount for both subsets of the dichotomy.
How can you conclude that there is not enough empirical evidence for evolution?
A creator MAY suggest that at some point, science was ignored and magic fixed the "problem". I hope you follow this, if a creator knew that he had to follow the "laws of science", or that he established the laws of science he was bound to them and everything would comply with those laws. However, to suggest a creator is also to imply, every so slightly, that at some point we may see a link that does not follow the laws which would hint at "magic".
If a creator exists that has complete indifference to us, then you would think the laws would be followed for it has no interest in leaving a "trail" for it has no interest in being worshipped as such. If a creator wished to be worshipped and known then there would be certain bits of evidence that would suggest the hand of "magic" would be involved.
I am unaware of any such contradictory "things" that suggest the only way they could be is by "magic". Everything suggests there is no NEED for a creator for the existence of the universe, and as such why would WE need a creator. We NEED a creator because we cannot answer the questions…yet. We NEED a creator because our fathers and mothers are dead and wouldn't it be nice to believe there was still something that was helping us?
Life for the vast majority of living things is a very frightening experience. I am grateful that for now, I get to experience life as a human, a long lived and happy human compared to the majority of humans, and far more than what the rest of the living creatures endure. But at some point, once my body ceases to live, the atoms will scurry about and attach themselves to something else. Perhaps a rat, a cast iron sewer pipe, a bullet, or a flower. This is as close to reincarnation I will "see" I suspect.
If a creator indeed created this for that very sake…it did a poor job.
Quote from: GreatLife on February 28, 2016, 12:26:12 PM
You are quite wrong on this assertion. Science has not debunked any gods. What science has done is to limit the scope of what a god could or could not do. In the process, the storyline for god keeps receding. He is now some creature which has always existed - but is not real. He is outside of space/time - yet interacts within it. The earth has gone from its role as the central orbital hub - to just another planet orbiting a vanilla sun in a galaxy that looks just like billions of others.
God is begin defeated by science... but science is not in the business of defeating god.
You're right on that. It was wrong of me to use the word 'debunked'. There is a plethora of scientific evidence against the Christian god and the Bible asserts all sorts of erroneous things, so I wouldn't consider it reliable.
As for my misspelling of the word 'arational', I apologize. It is a word I use very infrequently the last time I used it was when I took a course in philosophy a few years back.
Whether or not there is a sufficient amount is subjective, but what is not subjective is that there is a great deal more evidence that a creator does not exist than there is evidence that he does exist. There are reasonable, fact based theories regarding how the universe came into existence. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest that a creator was responsible.
You aren't going to get to any place logically sound using this method of argument.
"So I am confused how it is reasonable to ASSUME that there exists a creator in the absence of any evidence for one whatsoever? A belief governed by reason - has to be one supported by evidence, IMO. It seems neither rational or reasonable to simply assert the existence of a non-provable being or thing. To borrow a phrase from a famous philosopher - I can assert that their is a china pot orbiting somewhere beyond Mars - and that it is small enough to escape detection from even our most powerful telescopes. Do you find my assertion likely? There is just as much evidence (not popular support - but that is a different metric) for my assertion as there is for yours."
No. I am not claiming it is reasonable to believe in creationism, it is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in creationism if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
Quote from: Nonsensei on February 28, 2016, 12:41:30 PM
Whether or not there is a sufficient amount is subjective, but what is not subjective is that there is a great deal more evidence that a creator does not exist than there is evidence that he does exist. There are reasonable, fact based theories regarding how the universe came into existence. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest that a creator was responsible.
You aren't going to get to any place logically sound using this method of argument.
Yes but those fact based theories don't contradict all forms of creationism.
Quote from: aitm on February 28, 2016, 12:38:50 PM
A creator MAY suggest that at some point, science was ignored and magic fixed the "problem". I hope you follow this, if a creator knew that he had to follow the "laws of science", or that he established the laws of science he was bound to them and everything would comply with those laws. However, to suggest a creator is also to imply, every so slightly, that at some point we may see a link that does not follow the laws which would hint at "magic".
If a creator exists that has complete indifference to us, then you would think the laws would be followed for it has no interest in leaving a "trail" for it has no interest in being worshipped as such. If a creator wished to be worshipped and known then there would be certain bits of evidence that would suggest the hand of "magic" would be involved.
I am unaware of any such contradictory "things" that suggest the only way they could be is by "magic". Everything suggests there is no NEED for a creator for the existence of the universe, and as such why would WE need a creator. We NEED a creator because we cannot answer the questions…yet. We NEED a creator because our fathers and mothers are dead and wouldn't it be nice to believe there was still something that was helping us?
Life for the vast majority of living things is a very frightening experience. I am grateful that for now, I get to experience life as a human, a long lived and happy human compared to the majority of humans, and far more than what the rest of the living creatures endure. But at some point, once my body ceases to live, the atoms will scurry about and attach themselves to something else. Perhaps a rat, a cast iron sewer pipe, a bullet, or a flower. This is as close to reincarnation I will "see" I suspect.
If a creator indeed created this for that very sake…it did a poor job.
Your argument is axiomatically flawed. Creationism comes in many different flavors. You're making assumptions that are not necessarily correct.
Arational= not based on or governed by reason.
Irrational= not logical or reasonable.
Just to clarify. There is no evidence "a creator does not exist" because a complete lack of evidence by itself is not evidence. I think it would be more correct to say that the absence of any evidence would indicate the lack of any god (the Null Hypothesis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
As to whether our or any argument against creationism is axiomatically flawed, you first of all are going to have to define which set of creationist beliefs you are referring to.
Scientific method:
QuoteAsk a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results.
Assuming your- or any- version meets that criteria, then maybe. The problem with Creationism is that you are drawing a conclusion (divine creation) and then looking for answers to prove your belief. That is not based on observation- it is based on a stated but not proven belief.
Quote from: stromboli on February 28, 2016, 12:56:06 PM
Arational= not based on or governed by reason.
Irrational= not logical or reasonable.
Just to clarify. There is no evidence "a creator does not exist" because a complete lack of evidence by itself is not evidence. I think it would be more correct to say that the absence of any evidence would indicate the lack of any god (the Null Hypothesis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
There are many definitions of arational, I am speaking about the definition used in logic (see my post above).
Who/What created the creator?
Extraordinary claims should be dismissed without supplemental extraordinary evidence. They shouldn't even be claimed unless there is enough evidence to back it up
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 28, 2016, 01:06:39 PM
Who/What created the creator?
Extraordinary claims should be dismissed without supplemental extraordinary evidence. They shouldn't even be claimed unless there is enough evidence to back it up
Many of the current scientific theories are just as illogical in that sense.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 01:09:13 PM
Many of the current scientific theories are just as illogical in that sense.
They only claim what they know and admit whatever missing parts there are. How is only claiming what you have evidence for illogical?
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:25:33 PM
I am saying that both propositions are equally arrational because there isn't a sufficient amount of evidence to completely rule out creationism, nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.
Delta, I might join you on the fence, for I do follow what you are saying. Except for this part of your statement--'.....nor is there a sufficient amount of evidence to believe in creationism.' I find not a single bit of evidence for creationism. Just as I find no evidence for the unicorn, the Tooth Fairy (well, maybe a little for her), Santa Claus, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, the Genie (well, Barbara Eden--there is ample evidence for her), Bugs Bunny, etc. I find the same evidence for all those and other fictional characters, that I must put a creator into that category--fiction. And when evidence for any of them show up, I'll change my view on it then.
QuoteRational means not irrational.
Irrational means not rational.
Arational means neither rational OR irrational applies.
That is from a philosophy and logic website.
The point still remains that Creationism doesn't follow scientific method. Any one can make an assumption that something exists and then either find or invent evidence to "prove" it. Same as I said before. When you can prove creationism by using scientific method, be sure and tell us.
So fence sit until your panties are all in a bunch. Have fun.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.
Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.
Title says creationism vs anti-creationism (evolution?). Body says theism (apparently, Christianity) vs atheism. Totally different concepts. :/
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 28, 2016, 02:45:52 PM
Title says creationism vs anti-creationism (evolution?). Body says theism (apparently, Christianity) vs atheism. Totally different concepts. :/
No. Anti-creationists believe that there is no creator.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 03:09:36 PM
No. Anti-creationists believe that there is no creator.
Well, when all the reasons someone has for believing that creator exists is contradicted by even the most simple of observations... it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the idea of a "creator" isn't something that's anchored in reality.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:55:59 PM
Creationism comes in many different flavors. You're making assumptions that are not necessarily correct.
Creationism assumes the creator has a need or a desire for creating. There is nothing that suggest the universe needs a creator. There is nothing that suggests a creator needs a universe. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests the believer needs a creator, and only in some branches that the creator needs the believer. Outside of those beliefs, nothing suggests a creator needs the created, but again, more importantly nothing suggests the universe needs a creator. "Believing" that a creator does not exist is not only the correct assumption but the logical default, for nothing outside of human construct suggests a creator.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
In my opinion the disbelief in a creator is just as arrational (not irrational because there is little evidence for the negation of both creationism and anti-creationism) as the belief in a creator.
Although some creators are can easily be debunked by science such as the Christian god for which there is overwhelming evidence in favour of something that contradicts the Christian god, believing there is no creator, in my opinion, is just as unscientific as believing there is a creator. I will remain a fence sitter in that respect until presented with empirical evidences for either one of the subsets of the dichotomy.
Is your point that you haven't decided whether there is or not a creator because you don't find convincing evidence for either?
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 03:09:36 PMNo. Anti-creationists believe that there is no creator.
"Anti-creationists" (i.e. people who aren't creationists) are a ponderously large and theologically diverse bunch. This might come as a shock, but there are people who acknowledge the fact of evolution and also believe in God. So basically, your whole argument is predicated on false assumptions.
QuoteWho/What created the creator?
There in lies the problem and if we cannot comprehend a boundless universe then there must always be a beginning and an end to things. If our mind determines it cannot just be then "a creator" or something else must have created it. We are then left with the notion that if nothing can ever just be then the "creator" must also have been created by something else. As such the creationist argument is a logical fallacy, an error in reasoning, because we must always create more imaginary things to create other things. Logically the argument must always produce an infinite number of creators each one having created the last one for infinity.
Logically this is why people become Atheists, lol.
Recently the Hubble Telescope pointed towards the darkest part of the sky named the "Deep Field" and captured the deepest image of the universe ever taken. It found ten's of thousands of galaxies each galaxy containing millions of stars. If every pin prick in the fabric of visible space devoid of light holds the same then where is the end?. The further we look the more we see thus the proof we have in hand suggests there is no end dispite what our mind may have us believe.
Personally I think creators were created in the minds of people who are afraid to think, people who must reject the facts and reality because in many cases science fact is stranger than fiction. It is just easier to believe a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days than contemplate the unknown because the unknown scares them to their very foundation.
If a creator exists, he certainly didn't create anything that Creationism would have him creating. Creationists, for instance, predict biological systems that cannot evolve by any conceivable evolutionary pathway. Problem? Every biological system proposed by creationists has turned out to have a possible evolutionary pathway, with ample evidence to establish that was the way it happened.
Evolution delivers the goods. Creationism doesn't. That is the difference, and it is the reason why evolution is more rational than creationism.
DeltaEpsilon ... you are not using "create" in the same way as the other posters. That is a problem with using a non-technical word, and a bad language like English that muddles concepts. This happens with "science" when we read "Creationist" literature ... they are using "science" in the Medieval way ... meaning knowledge. Everyone else is using "science" in the scientific method sense, particularly as it is understood post 1700 CE.
Perhaps we need a separate thread for those few of us who care about metaphysics (the supposed meaning behind the concepts we use). In my metaphysics for example, it is unnecessary for time to have a beginning, it is also unnecessary for me to have a "theory of everything" in a scientific sense. Aristotle's "four causes" gives me enough to chew on (it is in his "metaphysics").
Unfortunately, when we use words differently than others, we frequently just get into word definition contests ;-( "Rational" is one of these bug-bear words too. There are exact definitions we can use, if you agree to it ... but it might not convey your thought. In my view, rationality is a tiny part of reality, and relatively not absolutely ... for me reality is irrational (not anti-rational though). Reality is chaotic, particularly on the human level. Valid logic is only found in toy situations, like chess or formal math. The phrase "you are being irrational" is simply rhetoric, same as using "you are an atheist" is rhetorical ... it isn't about establishing truth, it is about dis-establishing reputation.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 28, 2016, 07:34:22 PM
If a creator exists, he certainly didn't create anything that Creationism would have him creating. Creationists, for instance, predict biological systems that cannot evolve by any conceivable evolutionary pathway. Problem? Every biological system proposed by creationists has turned out to have a possible evolutionary pathway, with ample evidence to establish that was the way it happened.
Evolution delivers the goods. Creationism doesn't. That is the difference, and it is the reason why evolution is more rational than creationism.
What about forms of Creationism such as the Simulation Hypothesis?
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2016, 08:03:43 PM
DeltaEpsilon ... you are not using "create" in the same way as the other posters. That is a problem with using a non-technical word, and a bad language like English that muddles concepts. This happens with "science" when we read "Creationist" literature ... they are using "science" in the Medieval way ... meaning knowledge. Everyone else is using "science" in the scientific method sense, particularly as it is understood post 1700 CE.
Perhaps we need a separate thread for those few of us who care about metaphysics (the supposed meaning behind the concepts we use). In my metaphysics for example, it is unnecessary for time to have a beginning, it is also unnecessary for me to have a "theory of everything" in a scientific sense. Aristotle's "four causes" gives me enough to chew on (it is in his "metaphysics").
Unfortunately, when we use words differently than others, we frequently just get into word definition contests ;-( "Rational" is one of these bug-bear words too. There are exact definitions we can use, if you agree to it ... but it might not convey your thought. In my view, rationality is a tiny part of reality, and relatively not absolutely ... for me reality is irrational (not anti-rational though). Reality is chaotic, particularly on the human level. Valid logic is only found in toy situations, like chess or formal math. The phrase "you are being irrational" is simply rhetoric, same as using "you are an atheist" is rhetorical ... it isn't about establishing truth, it is about dis-establishing reputation.
If the other users are implying that creationism by definition rules out evolutionary theory than I'll happily admit that I was wrong. Although not all forms of creationism contradict evolution, for instance, the Simulation Hypothesis hypothesizes that there is an ultimate creator that has simulated our universe. It would be just as illogical to state that that theory is true (or likely true since I don't see any experiment that could confirm it or provide evidence for it) than to say it is not true (or likely untrue as it were). That is essentially what I am trying to get at.
Actually, I was trying to probe a conversation about atheism is the lack of belief in god rather than the disbelief in all gods.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 08:40:01 PM
Actually, I was trying to probe a conversation about atheism is the lack of belief in god rather than the disbelief in all gods.
For me, I have a hard time using 'belief' in my description of my stance on god. I don't 'think' god exists. What is the difference? Belief does not have to have any evidence to believe that it is accurate or true. You simply have to believe it. I can believe that Santa is indeed, real. I don't need any proof of that, just a belief that it is so. To think something is implies that reason or evidence was involved in coming to that conclusion. I don't think god/s exist--there is no evidence for any of them.
QuoteWhat about forms of Creationism such as the Simulation Hypothesis?
Interesting however I find the reasoning flawed coming full circle back to the we are the center of the universe theory. That somehow something finds you and you alone special and would create an imaginary universe... just for you. This is simply a psychological defect created by the mind otherwise most would probably just commit suicide. I mean what is the point when very few have any real sense purpose in the greater sense of the word. In a word, why?, and "why" make work for us on a superficial level within the context of this skewed little world we have created but not in a universal sense.
I would study psychology first then move on to philosophy because one cannot understand what we think without first determining why we think.
Quote from: Fickle on February 28, 2016, 09:39:40 PM
Interesting however I find the reasoning flawed coming full circle back to the we are the center of the universe theory. That somehow something finds you and you alone special and would create an imaginary universe... just for you. This is simply a psychological defect created by the mind otherwise most would probably just commit suicide. I mean what is the point when very few have any real sense purpose in the greater sense of the word. In a word, why?, and "why" make work for us on a superficial level within the context of this skewed little world we have created but not in a universal sense.
I would study psychology first then move on to philosophy because one cannot understand what we think without first determining why we think.
I agree ... I think that psychology is very important, as is philosophy, and they are inter-related. The majority of our experience is subjective ... but that is a weak tool dealing with those aspects that are relatively objective or relatively rational. Some people's word definitions ... people who post here ... would by definition exclude the "simulation universe" or the "brain in a jar" thought experiments. Word definitions can both include and exclude. I create two pieces of Spanish goat cheese by cutting one piece into two. But I didn't create the cheese, the cheese maker did. And that leads to a potentially infinite regression ... because without the she-goat and all of her ancestors back to the pre-Cambrian period, there would be no cheese to cut.
Great, another teen who thinks they've got life figured out. *yawn*
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 28, 2016, 10:26:38 PM
Great, another teen who thinks they've got life figured out. *yawn*
We were all there once. Fortunately after 19, I have never had to think again, because I actually was right ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2016, 10:27:34 PM
We were all there once.
That's why it annoys me. Reminds me too much of... well, me. :lol:
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 08:34:02 PM
What about forms of Creationism such as the Simulation Hypothesis?
Why would simulation creationism be more probable than creationism? It's still the same creator type guy, with the twist, "but he did it this way, rather than that way."
Quote from: SGOS on February 29, 2016, 06:43:00 AM
Why would simulation creationism be more probable than creationism? It's still the same creator type guy, with the twist, "but he did it this way, rather than that way."
It sounds more scientific than some goat herder saying "abracadabra". Another smore? Put another stick on the camp fire while you are at it. Gotta keep the Philistines away ;-)
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 08:40:01 PM
If the other users are implying that creationism by definition rules out evolutionary theory than I'll happily admit that I was wrong. Although not all forms of creationism contradict evolution, for instance, the Simulation Hypothesis hypothesizes that there is an ultimate creator that has simulated our universe. It would be just as illogical to state that that theory is true (or likely true since I don't see any experiment that could confirm it or provide evidence for it) than to say it is not true (or likely untrue as it were). That is essentially what I am trying to get at.
Actually, it's been suggested that a creator god has used evolution as the mechanism that created a variety of species, but that variation of creationism still suffers from it's same original flaw. There is no evidence to suggest a creator god needs to be added into the theory at any point. Everything works fine without that additional requirement.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 28, 2016, 12:42:20 PM
No. I am not claiming it is reasonable to believe in creationism, it is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in creationism if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
You're also painting yourself into a corner with this type of reasoning.
Illustration:
1.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in ghosts if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
2.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in unicorns if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
3.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in fairies if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
4.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in gouls if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
5.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in minotaurs if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
6.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in fire-breathing dragons if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
7.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in hydra if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
.
.
.
And so on, one can conjure a million entities for which it would be unreasonable to disbelieve on account of insufficient amount of evidence. Your position, to use your own words, is unreasonable.
Simulation hypothesis in particular has been debunked.
http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-you-are-not-living-in-computer.html
We live in the information age. Google it for fucks sake. Any claim made of a Creationist nature I am aware of has been debunked. could we please once and for all get rid of William Lane Craig and the other meatbrains that propose this crap?
And its "arational" not "arrational".
And it still is not science nor does it follow scientific method. Carry on.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 29, 2016, 10:07:14 AM7.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in hydra if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
:sob:
There is another theory...
What is creationism fundamentally?, it is that something has the capacity to create and self-organize and we already know nature does this all the time. The short sighted thermodynamics people told us all would end up as a diffused soup however this is not the case. Stars are born and die, galaxies are born and die and everything out there is in perpetual motion do to a force know as gravity. All things tend to gravitate, transform and self-organize then later diffuse and transform repeating an endless cycle so far as we know.
The boys at MIT did a wonderful experiment when they were trying to create Life. All had failed before them then one researcher tried to "animate" inanimate cells in a petri dish using a high voltage discharge ala Frankenstein. It worked and they discovered the obvious, extreme external change invokes internal change. Which comes full circle back to us and the fact what we know as the mind is simply electrical impulses travelling to cells in the brain which store and sort these impulses we perceive as information. We use this electrical network we call information to define our perception of reality.
Which puts a new twist on information, knowledge, logic, psychology and philosophy doesn't it?. Fundamentally all we know is dictated not by some imaginary forces but something we know...electrodynamics. Thus our mind is never truly our own, how could it be our own when fundamentally everything we think we think is dictated by a network of electric fields?. Which begs the question, what do you think you are fundamentally?, I understand we feel like so much more than we are however feeling and thinking is seldom the true reality of being.
It truly is a quagmire and the mind in itself, unknown to us, continually creates it's own imaginary world of false perceptions. I am... but what am I?. Personally all this talk of correct terminology, of the proper way of thinking, of proper logic and reason seems somehow superficial or foreign to me. It seems somehow disingenuous not unlike a computer virus which has started overwriting it's own primary code infecting others until it has no true form or function with respect to it's purpose. Round and round we go...where we stop nobody knows.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 29, 2016, 10:07:14 AM7.It is equally unreasonable to disbelieve in hydra if there is not a sufficient amount of evidence.
Pff, I wish hydras weren't real, because then they wouldn't be able to harass our Lord and Lizard.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/53/5f/10/535f1012b62a739a5fecbd27e241957b.jpg)
I know Hydra is real. Sometimes Hydra clicks on my "like" button and I experience a rise in endorphins. I don't believe he's a god, but he's pretty high up there in my reality.
Quote from: stromboli on February 29, 2016, 10:19:26 AM
Simulation hypothesis in particular has been debunked.
http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-you-are-not-living-in-computer.html
We live in the information age. Google it for fucks sake. Any claim made of a Creationist nature I am aware of has been debunked. could we please once and for all get rid of William Lane Craig and the other meatbrains that propose this crap?
And its "arational" not "arrational".
And it still is not science nor does it follow scientific method. Carry on.
Fair enough. I also already apologized for my misspelling arational.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
QuoteThe concept of simulated reality rests on older concepts such as solipsism, and the conundrum that we can never truly know whether the evidence of our senses and memories are merely illusions. The simulated reality hypothesis applies existing or hypothetical technology as possible explanations for the illusion.
This is partially true, it has been proven that the mind rejects 99% of what the eyes see. The eyes see everything inverted and the mind filters this information so it appears right side up in our mind. You do not see anything anymore than a USB camera does because what you see is sent as electrical impulses to the brain. I can show you 20 pictures and 10 minutes later 99% of the detail is missing and then you just start making up random shit which was never actually there. 100 people can observe something and almost every one of them has a different interpretation of what they think they saw. In time the memory of what they think they saw becomes skewed bearing little resemblance to what actually happened.
The eyes are like a camera and see everything, now look around the room for a few seconds and try to recall what you saw. Are you stupid?, no your semi-delusional and your mind has filtered out 99% of all the detail concerning what your eyes saw. Your mind creates this illusion for you to protect itself from an information overload. Otherwise you would be able to recall every single detail down to that speck of dust on the floor right in front of you. So yes we do live in a simulated reality of sorts proven through decades of psychology following the scientific method.
There is a saying in psychology...the only ones who are truly insane are the ones who think they are not in some way. In essence if you have no doubt, if you believe you must always be correct then there is a very good chance you have lost your marbles.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 29, 2016, 04:05:26 PM
Sorry...not...;-)
You big (possibly midsize) meanie. :angryfinger:
There are reasons for disbelieving in a creator. Here's one simple argument: assuming that a creator is a being with a mind who is responsible for the existence of the physical universe, we have good reasons for disbelieving in such a thing based on evidence that there must be matter in order for minds to exist.
There are also reasons for disbelieving in the existence of any gods. In my book The Truth about God (by Franz Kiekeben), I present an argument that all gods are impossible.
Welcome professor. Got some good reviews on your book on Amazon. The mods frown on self promoting, but I'm personally glad you brought this to us. I will certainly read it. Btw, your football coach used to coach my Alma Mater U of U. One of my favorite people. Stick around, we need input from enlightened minds.
Quote from: kiekeben on February 29, 2016, 05:46:15 PM
There are reasons for disbelieving in a creator. Here's one simple argument: assuming that a creator is a being with a mind who is responsible for the existence of the physical universe, we have good reasons for disbelieving in such a thing based on evidence that there must be matter in order for minds to exist.
There are also reasons for disbelieving in the existence of any gods. In my book The Truth about God (by Franz Kiekeben), I present an argument that all gods are impossible.
That seems like a valid argument.
Quote from: kiekeben on February 29, 2016, 05:46:15 PM
There are reasons for disbelieving in a creator. Here's one simple argument: assuming that a creator is a being with a mind who is responsible for the existence of the physical universe, we have good reasons for disbelieving in such a thing based on evidence that there must be matter in order for minds to exist.
There are also reasons for disbelieving in the existence of any gods. In my book The Truth about God (by Franz Kiekeben), I present an argument that all gods are impossible.
Oh, also. I'll be sure to order what you claim is your book. I am on Amazon right now.
Quote from: stromboli on February 29, 2016, 06:31:16 PM
Welcome professor. Got some good reviews on your book on Amazon. The mods frown on self promoting, but I'm personally glad you brought this to us. I will certainly read it. Btw, your football coach used to coach my Alma Mater U of U. One of my favorite people. Stick around, we need input from enlightened minds.
Thanks, I'll stick around for a while and lurk at least.
Quote from: kiekeben on March 01, 2016, 12:40:19 PM
Thanks, I'll stick around for a while and lurk at least.
Checked out your book. It is now on my read list. If Strom gives you a thumbs up, you can't be all bad! :)) Have you read Richard Carrier's latest book--On The Historicity of Jesus--and if you have, what do you think of it???
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on February 29, 2016, 07:18:01 PM
Oh, also. I'll be sure to order what you claim is your book. I am on Amazon right now.
I appreciate that. For the specific argument I mentioned, see the introductory part of ch. 7 and the section later in that chapter titled "Why there definitely is no God." (The two sections in between, "Minds and brains" and "Near-death experiences", deal with a different topic.)
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 12:43:38 PM
Checked out your book. It is now on my read list. If Strom gives you a thumbs up, you can't be all bad! :)) Have you read Richard Carrier's latest book--On The Historicity of Jesus--and if you have, what do you think of it???
No, but it's on MY list! (I am convinced Jesus existed, but am interested in what Carrier has to say about that.)
Imagine someone tried to breed one of those huge dump trucks they use in open-pit mines to a Smart car. 50-50? Not going to work. No viable offspring. They have evolved in different directions.
Now, imagine someone tried to breed a Chihuahua with a Great Dane. Won't happen. no viable offspring. They've evolved in different directions.
And remember, both are the results of human interference, no god needed.
To a dog, humans are god. But a cat knows better ;-)