Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

[fossten]

stuff

You're a legend in your own mind. Frankly, I have no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you, as you've demonstrated a propensity for childish and dishonest arguments. You may have the last word, as I'm going to block you from now on.

 

[hrmwrm]

You're a legend in your own mind.

if you say so.

Frankly, I have no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you,

i'd hardly call me making points you refuse to answer because they don't fall into your canned religious site responses a pissing contest. you actually have to try to refute my points for that.

as you've demonstrated a propensity for childish and dishonest arguments.

standard for you. can't prove your arguement, so start with the minimizing and insults.
such predictability.

You may have the last word,

ok. return when you can actually make an arguement for your claims.
c\p' ing a bunch of misinformation doesn't cut it.
merry christmas.

 

[Federali Aundy]

First off, sorry for the delay in reply!

there is no need [for God]. that's the point. you're saying it doesn't make it so. some like to believe. but then that's a preference, not a need.

Actually, I have shown that there is a metaphysical/objective need for God because a material universe cannot explain itself. You, however, point to a personal/subjective need for God (e.g. "some like to believe"). Objective needs and subjective needs are two very different matters - and while I have focused on the objective need for God, I could also make an argument for a subjective need for God. It is called the Argument from Desire:

1) For every natural and innate desire there exists something in reality to satisfy that desire (e.g. thirst can be satisfied by liquid beverages)

2) Humans have a natural and innate desire for total and complete happiness/blessedness

3) Therefore there must be a perfect God from which we can gain our happiness and blessedness.

things are created and destroyed daily/hourly/secondly, without a need for a god to do so.

To me you lose all credibility here - and this is one reason I hadn't replied to you yet. Foxpaws and I may disagree on a lot of things but, by and large, we agree on the principle of noncontradiction. Neither one of us thinks the universe simply made itself as you state here. We both trace things back to God (she in a panentheist sense and me in a monotheistic sense). Because you are satisfied in believing in an metaphsically unjustifed universe, your arguments lack any credibility whatsoever.

science is logic. which is why it doesn't deal with the supernatural.

Not true. Science uses logic, but logic (reason itself) doesn't need science. The number two cannot be found in space or time, but the laws of reason which transcend matter can be used to know that 2+2=4 without any recourse to the scientific method. Also, the sciences deal only with the material because only material things can be measured and tested materially. The sciences have nothing to say about the supernatural - and the minute they do so it is they who have become unscientific and unreasonable. To use "science" to attack the supernatural is not "science" but bad philosophy.

 

[shagdrum]

To use "science" to attack the supernatural is not "science" but bad philosophy.

The problem is when you have little or no understanding of the philosophical view you subscribe to, your only recourse when having your beliefs questioned, is to respond with some form of attack, insult or snide comment...or pasting what others have said.

 

[hrmwrm]

3) Therefore there must be a perfect God from which we can gain our happiness and blessedness.

apparently you need god for your happiness, but that's not a general statement of humankind.

To me you lose all credibility here - and this is one reason I hadn't replied to you yet. Foxpaws and I may disagree on a lot of things but, by and large, we agree on the principle of noncontradiction. Neither one of us thinks the universe simply made itself as you state here. We both trace things back to God (she in a panentheist sense and me in a monotheistic sense). Because you are satisfied in believing in an metaphsically unjustifed universe, your arguments lack any credibility whatsoever.

you mean to you, i lose credibility.
and you mean as opposed to your supernaturally unjustified universe.
you talk as if yours is the only correct view.

The sciences have nothing to say about the supernatural - and the minute they do so it is they who have become unscientific and unreasonable.

the sciences don't delve into the supernatural because there is no evidence for it.
it's unverifiable superstition. how can you ask somebody to believe in something you can't verify in any shape or form or manner.

Actually, I have shown that there is a metaphysical/objective need for God because a material universe cannot explain itself.

you've done no such thing. you have stated why you believe. there are very strange things in nature. that doesn't mean you have to resort to a supernatural explanation.
that's the simple and easy way out.
do you believe in every storm, lightening and thunder are created directly by god or is it a naturally occurring phenomenon?
it's just as easy to see anything as having a natural cause to it.
but then, your entitled to your thoughts as i am mine.

 

[shagdrum]

you talk as if yours is the only correct view.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, or to other people.

the sciences don't delve into the supernatural because there is no evidence for it.
it's unverifiable superstition. how can you ask somebody to believe in something you can't verify in any shape or form or manner.

And here is a prime example of your projection; specifically where you assume materialism is the only correct view. Therefore, only empirical evidence counts. Logical proof is irrelevant.

Do you not see how circular your arguments are?

 

[04SCTLS]

Logical proof is irrelevant.

You can make an in your opinion logical view or explanation but the supernatural God is something you can't prove(or disprove for that matter)

What is logical to you is a leap of faith to someone else.( this applies to both sides of the argument)

 

[hrmwrm]

And here is a prime example of your projection; specifically where you assume materialism is the only correct view.

you haven't got the hint i've been ignoring you all this time?
and where have i stated materialism is the only correct view?
if there were evidence of the supernatural, science would explore it. but since nothing hints or points to it, nor shows evidence of it's existance, it is not dealt with.
i state again for the small minded like you who just can't accept it,
SHOW YOUR PROOF FOR THE SUPERNATURAL!
until then, it's still superstition just the same as many cultural beliefs.
same as the gods of ancient egypt, greece, rome, etc. it's myth.

 

[Federali Aundy]

apparently you need god for your happiness, but that's not a general statement of humankind.

You must not understand syllogistic arguments very well because you need to point out some problem with the premises or terms in the argument rather than simply saying in effect "it may be true for you but not for everyone else." I presented you with two general claims which you will need to refute - and if you cannot do so, then my argument holds.

you mean to you, i lose credibility.
and you mean as opposed to your supernaturally unjustified universe.
you talk as if yours is the only correct view.

Again with the "to you" and "your supernaturally unjustified universe" and "yours is the only correct view." For one who claims to appeal only to the all-mighty objective Science, all I'm hearing are personal and subjective attacks. Let's keep it logical, please. When I offer my own views I say something to the effect that I am sharing my views. Every other point I've raised has been from pure reason and logic.

the sciences don't delve into the supernatural because there is no evidence for it.
it's unverifiable superstition. how can you ask somebody to believe in something you can't verify in any shape or form or manner.

Incorrect, the sciences don't delve into the supernatural because the supernatural is beyond the natural and, by definition, the sciences limit themselves only to what is natural, material, and physical. The sciences cannot say that there is or isn't anything supernatural because the supernatural is outside the purview of what the sciences can tell us. For example, the sciences cannot prove simple metaphysical truths such as the law of non-contradiction or the fact that from nothing only nothing comes. Neither of these truths can be tested in a labratory, yet no one calls them superstitions. They are two the building blocks of reality and they reflect the ordered mind of God Himself. It's not that there's no physical evidence of such principles but rather that the entire physical world we see is the evidence itself! Where did it come from? God is the only logical answer my friend.

you've done no such thing. you have stated why you believe. there are very strange things in nature. that doesn't mean you have to resort to a supernatural explanation.
that's the simple and easy way out.

Again, let's stick to logic not subjective opinion. I have not stated why I believe but rather I have shown that a material universe with its finite parts cannot logically make for an eternal or infinite material reality. Something outside matter had to bring matter into being - and that comes from the sciences and philosophy without any recourse to theology (though theology supports both). Nothing can create itself and you are attributing a purely illogicl explanation to the universe. Therefore the theist such as myself actually has an answer that is logical and this is why you lack credibility.

do you believe in every storm, lightening and thunder are created directly by god or is it a naturally occurring phenomenon?
it's just as easy to see anything as having a natural cause to it.
but then, your entitled to your thoughts as i am mine.

I really don't know where you're coming from on this - except that it looks like you're trying to change the subject from the universe's origin to things that go on every day on the planet. Let's stay on topic here. My argument is that the universe itself must come from God and you have yet to show how this view is incorrect.

 

[shagdrum]

and where have i stated materialism is the only correct view?

I NEVER said you STATED anything. However, I HAVE pointed out on countless occasions that you inherently ASSUME it in any and every point you make concerning religion, darwinism and the need for empirical evidence. Whether or not you realize that you are making that assumption is irrelevant. The fact remains that the views you are espousing assume it.

Here is ANOTHER example of you assuming materialism:

if there were evidence of the supernatural, science would explore it. but since nothing hints or points to it, nor shows evidence of it's existance, it is not dealt with.
i state again for the small minded like you who just can't accept it,
SHOW YOUR PROOF FOR THE SUPERNATURAL!
until then, it's still superstition just the same as many cultural beliefs.
same as the gods of ancient egypt, greece, rome, etc. it's myth.

Here again, you assume materialism. There is NO WAY this statement makes ANY logical sense UNLESS materialism is assumed.

Are you really deceiving yourself so much on this that you are incapable of seeing this?!

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
-George Bernard Shaw​

 

[shagdrum]

Incorrect, the sciences don't delve into the supernatural because the supernatural is beyond the natural and, by definition, the sciences limit themselves only to what is natural, material, and physical. The sciences cannot say that there is or isn't anything supernatural because the supernatural is outside the purview of what the sciences can tell us. For example, the sciences cannot prove simple metaphysical truths such as the law of non-contradiction or the fact that from nothing only nothing comes. Neither of these truths can be tested in a laboratory, yet no one calls them superstitions. They are two the building blocks of reality and they reflect the ordered mind of God Himself. It's not that there's no physical evidence of such principles but rather that the entire physical world we see is the evidence itself! Where did it come from? God is the only logical answer my friend.

You mean science has limits?!

Blasphemy!

 

[foxpaws]

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
-George Bernard Shaw​

Shag - this works both ways - if you believe in the supernatural don't you become blind to the arguments against it as well?

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - this works both ways - if you believe in the supernatural don't you become blind to the arguments against it as well?

What is the purpose of this statement if not to simply delegitimize the notion of objective truth in favor of subjective truth?

What function does it serve in this discussion except to provide an out for anyone looking to excuse any notion they don't like regardless of how well that notion is backed up by reason and/or facts?

 

[foxpaws]

No shag - it was to state the obvious - your quote works for both 'sides'...

Belief has a tendency to blind one... no matter if you believe the world is carried on the back of a turtle, of if you believe the world is only 6,000 years old.

And what purpose did the quote have in the first place shag - to undermine hrmwrm - however, you neglected to see that it could also be used to discredit your 'side' as well.

 

[shagdrum]

No shag - it was to state the obvious - your quote works for both 'sides'...

...yet your statement serves to gloss over the profound difference in reasoning here by falsely equating the two arguments presented as being equal valid (or invalid, as your statement infers).

However, one argument explicitly states and justifies it's logical premises while the other avoids confronting (let alone justifying) it's premises while misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint.

Your statement only serves to muddy the waters, nothing more. If it was simply to serve the purpose you state, then it was redundant and completely unnecessary.

 

[Federali Aundy]

I don't think I ever stated that it wasn't - it always has had a end point - and a beginning point - the universe started at the bang - the 'impetuous' has been our sticking point.

Some confusion might be my general use of "universe" versus your strict use of the word to refer to what came after the Big Bang. I often use "universe" to refer to any material realm (both before and after the Big Bang).

Why do our laws of logic still apply to universes that might not be 'matter' - they could be 'anti-matter' universes - could be where all of our antimatter ended up. Universes could be cyclic in a circle - time means nothing outside the universes - they could just feed upon themselves.

Because no matter what universe you are in, 2+2 will always equal four and every possible universe must ultimately find its justification in God alone. Some universe (not ours) could have a cyclic nature but it would still require a beginning point even if it will just continue the cycle indefinitely. Similarly, you can set your CD player to rerun a CD onece it's over, but at some point you have to hit play to start the cycle going.

Why does God have to be 'scientific'?

Well a lot depends on what you mean here. God is not "scientific" in a way which can prove Him physically, for He is pure spirit. Even Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is 100% God and 100% human, would not show up in tests as anything other than human. What religions need to do, however, is to show that their beliefs do not run contrary to reason - because we simply cannot believe something that is shown to be false. This is particularly true for monotheistic religions since they proclaim a personal God who is reasonable and logical. For the monotheist, faith and reason can never contradict.

We could be one of many, many planets, in a series of Universes that God has chosen - infinite perhaps

It's certainly possible that there could be many other planets in the universe - or even a series of universes. We do know, however, that there have not been infinite universes because matter cannot be infinite and the universes are material.

I still think without Universe, God isn't complete. He needed the material - to finish the Trinity.

Well I am very interested to hear how the material universe finishes the Trinity. Could you explain this?

 

[hrmwrm]

i'll make my final point, then i'm finished with this.
on earth, you see natural answers to everything. there is nothing supernatural in any occurence. there is natural process in biology, geology, well, everything seen in the world.

in space, you see natural answers there. stars and planets form in areas where there is material to do so.
there are no stars that magically appear from nothing. you can look into the remains of supernova's and see new star formation. probably planet formation as well, as tools are getting better at looking for these things. there are no supernatural occurences there.

i see a natural order. not one instance of supernatural occurence in it.

now, as i've stated before, show me an instance of supernatural occurence.
or, theres nothing.
philosophical arguements don't cut it, as there have been arguements for both through history. it is a mind game.
so, if you have no supernatural evidence, i'm done with this arguement.

 

[Federali Aundy]

i'll make my final point, then i'm finished with this.

First off, the "final point" you make has absolutely nothing to do with what we've been talking about. Maybe you need to stay on topic or concede defeat. And speaking of options, I believe you have two at this point: 1) Respond to my argumentation or 2) Give up. It's your choice to choose the latter route, but I'm counting this as a victory for theism if you do so.

on earth, you see natural answers to everything. there is nothing supernatural in any occurence. there is natural process in biology, geology, well, everything seen in the world.

I never once argued about whether or not "on earth, you see natural answers to everything." I agree with you that the sciences (e.g. biology, geology, etc.) paint a wonderful picture of natural physical occurances. I am not a polytheist who believes the gods are in control of lightning bolts and volcanos. Bringing this up is a clever way of avoiding the fact that a First Cause got the physical world started.

in space...there are no stars that magically appear from nothing...there are no supernatural occurences there.

Oh, but you do say that

"particles continuously pop in/ out of existence. nothing magical/supernatural about it.

Indeed, if the universe can simply pop in to existence, then we have given it a power that not even God has: the power of self-causation. This is why you lack credibility - your materialism is a self-contradiction. The theistic belief becomes the only believable option between us. The sciences may not be able to materially prove God's existence, but God's existence does not contradict the sciences or reason. Your materialism is both unreasonable and unscientific. Indeed, it is arguably worse than superstition.

i see a natural order. not one instance of supernatural occurence in it.

The fact that there is a natural order is also evidence for a God who can set the laws of nature in such a way as to bring about a natural order which reflects His ordered mind. A universe without God cannot produce the universe we see in the small amount of time it has been around.

now, as i've stated before, show me an instance of supernatural occurence.

Well, there are a great many. Each Catholic saint requires evidence of the miraculous in order to be canonized. Perhaps you should check out some of these. There's another great example of the Virgin Mary appearing before tens of thousands in Egypt - which is quite a feat considering that 90% of those who saw her are Muslims (including Egypt's president) who are not the most Pro-Catholic.

philosophical arguements don't cut it, as there have been arguements for both through history. it is a mind game.

So who's attacking who of being unreasonable? If you reject philosophy then you reject reason itself. In an ealier post I presented you with a clear syllogism. If you do not want to respond to reason, then how can even claim to be scientific since even science is based on the laws of reason (even if it's more inductive reason rather than deductive reason)?

so, if you have no supernatural evidence, i'm done with this arguement.

This argument? How can there be an argument with one who rejects reason? I suggest you take off your materialist philosophy lenses for a moment and contemplate reality.

 

[hrmwrm]

First Cause got the physical world started.

yes.

Oh, but you do say that

no. i never said stars appear from nothing. i said particles.

Indeed, if the universe can simply pop in to existence, then we have given it a power that not even God has:

god's never had a beginning. but yet exists. sounds like he popped out of nowhere to me.

This is why you lack credibility - your materialism is a self-contradiction.

sounds more like your supernaturalism is contradictory.

How can there be an argument with one who rejects reason?

believing in magical things is reasonable?

Well, there are a great many. Each Catholic saint requires evidence of the miraculous in order to be canonized. Perhaps you should check out some of these. There's another great example of the Virgin Mary appearing before tens of thousands in Egypt - which is quite a feat considering that 90% of those who saw her are Muslims (including Egypt's president) who are not the most Pro-Catholic

i'm not doing your homework. put them up and prove them.
i've seen a man walk through the wall of china and disappear the statue of liberty.

If you reject philosophy then you reject reason itself.

not all philsophy comes to a proveable logical conclusion. some can lead to mythological flights of fancy.

I suggest you take off your materialist philosophy lenses for a moment and contemplate reality.

same to you with your supernatural views.

 

[Calabrio]

There's another great example of the Virgin Mary appearing before tens of thousands in Egypt - which is quite a feat considering that 90% of those who saw her are Muslims (including Egypt's president) who are not the most Pro-Catholic

I was not aware of these reports from last year.
YouTube - ‫ظهورالسيده العذراء ÙÙ‰ الوراق.3gp‬‎

 

[shagdrum]

Hrmwrm let me make this as clear as I can; EVERY COMMENT YOU MAKE on this issue is premised on the notion of matierialism. In ANY reasonable and productive discourse with a viewpoint that does NOT share that assumption you HAVE to justify it. ALL you keep doing is ASSUMING it as true then filitering all arguments through that assumption. This leads to nothing but an argument where the two sides shout past each other.

By forcing a one-sided materialistic standard of judgment, there is no common ground from which to discuss things and any opposing argument unavoidably gets filtered and misrepresented by that materialist standard of judgment. This engenders animosity because, A) it comes across as if you are intentionally distorting the opposing viewpoint to fit your own misconceptions and prejudices of the opposing view (instead of being willing to challenge those prejudices, which is a necesary prerequisite for productive dialog) and, B) it looks like you are you are attempting to rig the discussion be framing the debate into a "heads-I-win, "tails-you-lose" situation. No productive discourse is possible in that environment because it is clearly being inhibited by one side of the debate.

For ANY productive discourse to take place, you HAVE TO justify that assumption of materialism or stop assuming it in the debate. To continue dancing around it only inhibits any discourse. To NOT justify that assumption or stop using it when it is challenged in argument shows that the position being argued is rooted not in reason but in DOGMA. It is an implicit admission that you really have no argument and that reason is not on your side.

So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in feelings, it gains rather then loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded are it's adherents that their feelings must have some deeper ground which the argument does not reach.
-John Stuart Mill
​

 

[foxpaws]

...yet your statement serves to gloss over the profound difference in reasoning here by falsely equating the two arguments presented as being equal valid (or invalid, as your statement infers).

However, one argument explicitly states and justifies it's logical premises while the other avoids confronting (let alone justifying) it's premises while misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint.

Your statement only serves to muddy the waters, nothing more. If it was simply to serve the purpose you state, then it was redundant and completely unnecessary.

So shag, the supernatural is more 'valid' than science?

I didn't say that either was 'invalid' I just stated that once you got 'belief' into the equation - your quote works, in this case for both sides of the creationism question.

 

[shagdrum]

So shag, the supernatural is more 'valid' than science?

Not at all what I said and you know it.

I didn't say that either was 'invalid'...

No, you simply attempted to equate in the area of validity. Therefore, if one is invalid, both are invalid.

Unless it was an attempt to agitate and subvert discourse, your statement was not necessary.

 

[foxpaws]

Some confusion might be my general use of "universe" versus your strict use of the word to refer to what came after the Big Bang. I often use "universe" to refer to any material realm (both before and after the Big Bang).

Probably is - I see the universe as following the bang, because there is no time before - and our universe needs time in which to define itself.

Because no matter what universe you are in, 2+2 will always equal four and every possible universe must ultimately find its justification in God alone. Some universe (not ours) could have a cyclic nature but it would still require a beginning point even if it will just continue the cycle indefinitely. Similarly, you can set your CD player to rerun a CD once it's over, but at some point you have to hit play to start the cycle going.

Cyclic universes wouldn't require a beginning point - circles have no end and no beginning. It works because beyond the 'universes' there isn't 'time'. Just as God has no beginning and no end...

Well a lot depends on what you mean here. God is not "scientific" in a way which can prove Him physically, for He is pure spirit. Even Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is 100% God and 100% human, would not show up in tests as anything other than human. What religions need to do, however, is to show that their beliefs do not run contrary to reason - because we simply cannot believe something that is shown to be false. This is particularly true for monotheistic religions since they proclaim a personal God who is reasonable and logical. For the monotheist, faith and reason can never contradict.

Your religion may not run 'contrary to' reason - but it certainly pushes the boundaries of reason - immaculate conception being one of them. Heaven and hell certainly aren't the ideas of 'reason' but of 'religion'.

Well I am very interested to hear how the material universe finishes the Trinity. Could you explain this?

Jesus is human, as well as divine. He must be material - and he completes the Trinity.

 

[foxpaws]

Not at all what I said and you know it.

You said...

...yet your statement serves to gloss over the profound difference in reasoning here by falsely equating the two arguments presented as being equal valid (or invalid, as your statement infers).​

Certainly sounds like you are stating that one of the two arguments is 'more' valid - since my statement is 'false' (according to you) that they are equally valid.

No, you simply attempted to equate in the area of validity. Therefore, if one is invalid, both are invalid.

Unless it was an attempt to subvert discourse, your statement was not necessary.

Shag - I was merely pointing out that your quote works for all belief systems - including the ones put for here - for both sides. They are both beliefs - so they both fall within the boundaries of your quote.