Open minded towards creationism

by truth finder 2 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • truth finder
    truth finder

    This will be the last time I work on this. This is some thought for Reluctant Buddha to consider. Reluctant Buddha stated that,

    Post 24 of 26
    since 12-Dec-05

    Too bad "truth finder" you werent [sic] around to read my rather lengthy discussion for all the new discoveries that are pointing back to an eternally osciallting [sic] universe, an infinite regression of "big bangs."

    The logical difficulties is still inherent in this position, which I do not know the entire details of, but I know the foundations for this argument (one of my classmates last semester tried to explain it to me not seeing the logical problems in the argument). The gist of the whole story by Reluctant Buddha comes when he says, “an infinite regression of ‘big bangs’.”

    Now, this view brings the problem of a vicious regress, which is impossible from the understanding of modern logic. There has to be a stopping point, and the following cannot apply

    a, b, c, d,…..

    The Cosmological Argument is as follows,

    1. Every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being
    2. Not every being can be a dependent being.


    1. There exists a self-existent being.

    This argument is deductively valid, though its premises may not be true. The PSR, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason will help in the study, whether we want to accept all of the premises or not. All objects are,

    1. explained by another
    2. explained by nothing
    3. explained by itself

    The first premise is true by virtue of its construction, i.e. there cannot be both alternatives that are true at the same time, since that would exclude every being as being a dependent being. In accepting the PSR, we can only chose 1 and 3, since it is impossible for something to be explained by nothing. When we turn to premise 2, we might say that every being is a dependent being. But this not acceptable, since there would exist a vicious regress, and there would be no stopping point. One of the most fundamental ideas in science is that for every cause there must be some one fundamental agent.

    The view put forward by Reluctant Buddha is that to accept it we would have to accept 2 of the PSR, which states that it is explained by nothing. And a being explained by nothing is impossible. In addition to the Cosmological Argument there exists a great number of finds showing that evolution is wrong, and that some scientific theories have actually broken other scientific theories that are still acceptable. One of them I believe is the Law of Thermodynamics.

    A last point to mention is that to make good discoveries we must open minded. And being open-minded means not attacking a view just because there may be a point or two one may not accept. Two of the fallacies that I picked up on are the Ad Hominem Fallacy, or argument against the person (though it need not involve one person) fallacy, and the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

    There exists many scientists, and researchers with doctorates degrees who accept intelligent design. You stated, “The ruling was a major setback for the not-so-‘intelligent design’ deceivers, and that a judge stated that there exists “overwhelming evidence that ‘Intelligent Design’ is nothing more than so-called ‘scientific creationism’ relabeled to hide it’s actual religious nature.”

    The part where you called intelligent design followers deceivers is an Ad Hominem, as you are attacking the person(s) advancing intelligent design by not using rational critique of the argument. As for the judge’s statements, there exists a great number of judges who make mistakes. While there may exist a great number of ID followers who are Christians, that does not disqualify the theory. I will not be “nit picking” and so will not describe the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

    I think that the ID theory may not appear believable to many followers at first site. I used to have the same problem with math. I had to work, and work on math, until I got better at it. Every semester, until I went to advanced engineering math, my thinking would get more tuned in to math. The same experience happened with reading, and doing philosophy. I worked on the two former subjects within these past two years, that today, while I may not be an avid novel reader, or a professional logician my skills have nevertheless increased in the two subjects.

    What I have found is that there exists a great number of little amazing facts about the bible that get revealed every year. Do you know that the bible is remarkably similar, and that there exists more evidence for it than many other things (I believe it is said to be one of the most historically accurate pieces in history), e.g. figures, or facts in history, which are automatically taken as true by many? There have been studies proving that out of 24,000 NT documents, 99% of the variants in those documents are insignificant. [1] Many of them involve switching “Christ Jesus” for “Jesus Christ.” [2] I would recommend that Reluctant Buddha not take an a priori dogmatism towards Christianity, just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Society who has been shown to have an a priori Unitarianism. [3]

    [1] Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001), 38.

    [2] Ibid.

    [3] Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1982), 4.

  • AlmostAtheist
    1) Every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being
    2) Not every being can be a dependent being.
    3) There exists a self-existent being.

    Do you really mean "being" here? Like a living creature? If so, then a simple reproducing life form falling together randomly under the forces of nature would fulfill that 3rd point, wouldn't it?

    Not to argue that such a thing ever happened, but if it DID happen, then I don't think we'd be violating any of those three points to have evolved from that first being to what we have now.

    And I might as well toss in that I don't see any logical holes in an infinite regression of big bangs. It's well outside of anything I've ever experienced (or at least perceived) in my life, but that doesn't make it a logical impossibility.

    Does it?


  • FairMind

    I glad y'all made this so simple!

Share this