How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends

Etude

sabastious : My first attempt at answering your challenge (my post #241) seems to have gone by the way side. I was merely trying to show how futile your premise is by showing another equally futile but similar premise using the I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours scenario. So, I said to your "The universe was created by an intelligent being", " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. "
I tried to illustrate the principle involved in this argument on a different thread that Terry posted titled " Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?", to which you made a sizable contribution. So now, I felt compelled to read through this entire thread in order to gather as much information about what it is you really intend to establish with your premise.
You spoke of the "scientific method". Since it consists of "systematic observation", then your "vision" must be positively myopic. That is why the data you take in is flawed. Your observations (at least many of the ones you stated here) are not based on testable points. You may fail to understand that your our own "senses" can fool you and that is why you need to not make hasty assumptions or any assumptions at all when none are forthcoming. By your words, your scientific method goes like this:
"Systematic observation" - You listen to your senses telling you there must be an intelligent superior being, which senses are define by an intelligent superior being, namely God. So -- that you have senses must mean there is a God.
"Measurements" - You constantly measure phenomenon (each of all possible phenomena that you ever encounter and compare each to one, many or all possible phenomena that you ever encountered, the process of which (the comparison?) must be logical and consistent. If measurements change, so do your conclusions (even though you and you alone assume your process to be logical and consistent. Sounds like a job for IBM's Watson!
"Experiment, formulation, testing and hypothesis" - This explanation of yours is a rehashing of the previous explanations with the added "unclassic" scientific view you and you alone seem to posses, one contrary to the "classic" scientist who with the scientific method you seem to partially uphold will discover photosynthesis but not electromagnetism and the quantum field and who will stop asking question and testing results when his bias takes him to an expected conclusion.
You suggest that this bias is what hides information of the subject which the very critique by other scientists is trying to uncover via a peer review. And you figured all this out via your trained systematic powers of observation and your careful measurements of not only all of those scientific subjects but also via a thorough investigation of the peer review process.
OK. So if you're going to say to me that that's not how you judge everything but that you merely say that to suggest one possibility, I will agree that there exists such a possibility. But while and until you show some examples that establish a trend, you can't establish that argument as a premise for your next argument, namely that you must be right in whatever you say next because you've suggested a different way things can go.
By your very words: " my goal is to have spiritual ideas that are perfectly compatible with both Religion and Science" you have found yourself guilty of what you say some "classical" scientists do, looking to prove or disprove something and then stopping any further search when they find the answer that suits them. You have preconceptions that cloud your understanding of what others are trying to say to you here.
Earlier I wrote (on my post #241 to your premise "The universe was created by an intelligent being.": " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot." Your reply was: " An intelligent (self-aware) being capable of creating an explosion using Higgs-like quantum particles to create the existence you and I reside within."
OK. So, break down that answer for me, using the scientific method (yours if you like and not the "classic" one) and explain how your response constitute a reasonable answer. If you think that by this exercise we're straying off topic, then at least consider that the topic as you defined it involves many, many, pieces of data derived from "systematic observation", and yes, not just your observation. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: we must have the same common observation in order for all of us to reach the same or any conclusion.
I don't understand why you're hung up on the "Goddamn" particle. Since they sort of cleaned up the name, which was originally intended to ascribe to it its illusiveness, you might not feel or deduce the same if they called it the F*#@ing particle, 'cause it just is so damned stubborn.
You say: " It's not a mistake to make a claim and provide what one feels to be sufficient evidence for belief " Then, in the same post you say: " You are only appealing to the logic you presented in accordance with the evidence provided (which I have not provided ALL evidence I have) ". My systematic observations of many of your statements reveal a noticeable inconsistency in your position. You beg to establish a conclusion, the one about Einstein's religiosity and then tell us that you haven't provided all of the evidence for it.
You say: " The scientific method was not created by science, it was refined into the model it is today by scientists. " According to the article in Wikipedia, "The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself ." That is true not because it's in Wikipedia, but because there is evidence of the scientific influences that helped develop it. Then you say: " Many scientists claim that these [inexplicable] feats [from shamans] are frauds " without providing examples or for instances of those scientists to support your statements.
I know you've made your systematic observations and therefore feel free to make such a statement. But you must realize that the rest of us need to examine those observations (consider us your peer review) and test if they are correct or not. Some have been brought to light here, with which you seem to disagree. Well, you should pick one and let us hammer out what does or doesn't make sense about it. I'm sorry, but I don't see you very willing to do that.
You have built quite an edifice inside your head about the "world" and what really lies in it. I see a decided construct where God relates prominently in it. That is perfectly OK. If you must justify it, please understand that other people may not see it or reason it you your way. So, do the arguing for yourself and not for others. That only brings conflict when your world comes clashing with everyone else's (as I'm gathering from this discussion). It would seem that you have a strong sense of the spiritual and need to justify it. Many people just accept it and don't question it. Other can't help but challenge non-logical assumptions about our existence.
I must admit that one reason I kept on reading the thread was to see what picture EntirelyPossible was going to come up with next depicting pants on fire. I was cracking up. I hope you took the jest without insult. Since the subject was brought up about some personal condition you're experiencing, I would like to suggest that (in the most innocuous way and without any disrespect intended), that perhaps your condition is unduly influencing perception.
I also think that it is perfectly OK and that because of your condition your personality can actually result in a very unique individual with an exceptional point of view. But my observation is that you probably need to rein in that point of view because, in my opinion, it really is not representative of what others consider logical and reasonable. I'm not saying we need to put a chill on discourse. What I am saying is that if we're going to engage in discourse, we need to do it using the same set of rules. While you're kinda out-there, using your internal set of rules based on your personal observations, it may not be possible to reason with others on the same level.
Best wishes,
Etude.
Giordano

Bravo Etude! Couldn't have said it better. Actually I doubt if I am capable of saying it better. There are times on this forum, and this thread is one of those times, that good brianpower is being put to nonsenscial ends. However out of speculation some truth may emerge. My approach to this subject apart from ignoring it is to say the following: Let us say that something like God exists. We must then speculate that other gods might also exist. If our god is alive and well then others could be. Unless our god systematically goes about pulling the plug on any other god that emerges. Doubtful but not impossible. Proof? Since the Bible provides the only clues about the nature of god one can simply look at the ten commandments. #1. ' You shall have no other gods before me.' #2. 'You must not make for yourself an idol..............for I the Lord your God am a jealous god who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods.' New Living Translation. If we learned anything about life on earth it is that life and other core elements exist in multiples. In general there is no one of anything. We have stars and planets and on earth mountains and oceans........ we have a gaggle of Geese, a Murder of Crows, a Herd of Cattle and we have mankind.
How many atoms can dance on the head of a pin? So what about god? If there is one....... why can't there be more? In fact considering the diversity of gods worshipped here on planet Earth and the complexities and size of the universe a case can be made for many gods all working as hard as they can. In reality we know that there are thousands of gods that are no longer worshiped and thousands more, including the Christian god, who are still being actively worshiped. And since the only proof that the Christian god exists is the belief of those who worship it we must be fair and acknowledge that other gods could exist as well. Or that no gods exist. Can't have it both ways. But where did the gods come from? If there must be a watchmaker then god had to have had a watchmaker. Since we are dealing with eternity then there was plenty of time for this to evolve or come about. On the other hand since life as we know it evolved after the Big Bang perhaps the gods evolved after the big bang as well. Billions of years for our life to evolve the same billions for the gods to evolve. Of course the gods may be nothing more then aliens who once visited this planet. Aliens like Johnny Apple Seed who sprinkled enough DNA around to give life, as we know it, a chance. Aliens who checked up on the crop and nudged it along with some basic science and reasoning. Or Aliens who were in competition with one another, Angry vengeful aliens who did not come with good intentions but came to exploit humankind leaving us dazed and confused. .
insearchoftruth4

Boy, you said it, you guys are dazed and confused.
rather be in hades

can we prove that harry potter is not real?
otherwise we cannot rule it out
how about star wars?
there's a bunch of galaxies far far away...
Terry

Simple reasoning is the best.
Whatever manufacturer errors humans are said to possess are either the result of Evolution's blind mutations and adaptations---or---the weird result
of a flawed Creator unable to achieve His own aims.
When something is created buy a Creator it is only AS GOOD AS the ability of the creator.
The Genesis account destroys creationism.
The character of GOD is portrayed as having to TEST his creation.
Stop and have a fresh thought here!!
Why is God UNCERTAIN? If God's ability is lacking a test would be necessary.
But, if God has no flaw as creator there can be no need for a test.
The story is obviously mythos. Either God is a flawed Creator with an uncertain creation (requiring testing) or the story is imaginary.
If the first humans were created by a flawless Creator with absolute ability to achieve His aims-- humanity, by its very nature, would flawlessly demonstrate
the creators attributes.
A carmaker that has to recall its automobiles is a good example.
No thing can escape its own nature.
To repeat: FREE WILL is a will free OF something! In the instance of Genesis mythical Eden that can only be a freedom from something or someone.
What? Freedom from God's perfect ability to make humanity in His own image.
Whatever manufacturer errors humans are said to possess are either the result of Evolution's blind mutations and adaptations---or---the weird result
of a flawed Creator unable to achieve His own aims.
sabastious

The flaw in your reasoning is that it implies if you can't disprove it, it must be true. So everything one can't disprove must be true. Flawed reasoning. The burden of proof is in the positive, not the negative.
I confess. I haven't read a single word in this long thread and I don't need to read a single word in this long thread. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who makes the assertion. ALWAYS. One can attack the "proof" or evidence offered, but one would be an idiot to try to disprove a simple claim or assertion offered. You've seen this stuff dozens of times in here. If I say, "God tells me that little angels live on Lily Pads between March and July and if I visit those Lily Pads those little angels will tell me what I need to know to please God," and then I say "prove me wrong," It cannot be done. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim and they cannot logically shift that burden of proof on anyone else.
These are misunderstandings of my position. I do not think that just because creationism cannot be disproved that it's true. I have said, I think serveral times now, that because it cannot be disproved it's not an illogical intellectual pursuit. If it WAS disproved, like many claim, then there would no reason to even think about it. This is not the case, because it's not disproved. The burden of proof is on the people who say it's disproved. The burden of proof has already been satisfied in this thread in regards to the notion that a creator exists. The evidence is existence, but existence is a bit complicated, so it takes time to compile all the information.
-Sab
sabastious

You may fail to understand that your our own "senses" can fool you
I do not fail to understand this. I understand confirmation bias more so than most people because I have been working with it for so long both in my own life and identifying it in others. It can be surmounted, to say otherwise is a false claim. The sages of old did it, so can I, but you need the help from the Creator. You cannot simply cut off my entire argument like you are trying to do.
-Sab
sabastious

Why is God UNCERTAIN? If God's ability is lacking a test would be necessary.
Because that's the point of creation, Terry (thanks for coming into the thread, btw). There is only one God and that God would eventually want a challenge. Before the material world there existed only the immaterial world where God resides. There are ideas and then there is the application of those ideas. Think about an invention that you draw up. You can make all the necessary calculations to prove that it will be logically sound and that it will be able to adequately perform the task it's designed to do. However, the schematics do nothing, you have to still build the invention and then test it's capabilities within the field it's designed to operate on. It's the same with the spirit realm and the material realm. The spirit realm is the schematic and the material realm is the construction process. We ARE the test, the ONLY test. So God is not uncertain, he's just in the building process.
To repeat: FREE WILL is a will free OF something! In the instance of Genesis mythical Eden that can only be a freedom from something or someone. What? Freedom from God's perfect ability to make humanity in His own image.
Free will is a gift from God to us. That's why the material world was established in the first place. For God to give what he has to others, but he had to create those others in order to give them what he has. There is also a process to that gift and that process travels through death and sacrifice.
-Sab
sabastious

By your very words: " my goal is to have spiritual ideas that are perfectly compatible with both Religion and Science" you have found yourself guilty of what you say some "classical" scientists do, looking to prove or disprove something and then stopping any further search when they find the answer that suits them. You have preconceptions that cloud your understanding of what others are trying to say to you here.
No, I never did this. I established motivation for the search for God. If there are facts that disprove that a Creator is possible then there IS NO MOTIVATION. Because that motivation is not unwarrented anyone who is on the path of searching for the One True God is not traveling in vanity. That is the entire atheist argument in a nutshell. They say, just give up because it's a lost cause and that's a FALSE CLAIM that has been perpetuated throughout the ages by rationalists. It's all throughout history, this is the oldest debate of all history. In polytheism/pantheism all subjects are left to wonder who created the gods. They were created by ONE SOURCE, ONE INTELLIGENCE and there is not one thing that Science can say to disprove that. So it's a VALID INTELLECTUAL pursuit, which is something I never hear rationalists say. They want to claim the opposite, which is just an opinion.
-Sab
sabastious

But my observation is that you probably need to rein in that point of view because, in my opinion, it really is not representative of what others consider logical and reasonable. I'm not saying we need to put a chill on discourse. What I am saying is that if we're going to engage in discourse, we need to do it using the same set of rules. While you're kinda out-there, using your internal set of rules based on your personal observations, it may not be possible to reason with others on the same level.
Why would I rein in my own valid research? Because some people don't think it's logical? How many scientists have had to push through similar criticisms? Thomas Edison for one. It's not like he gave anything of value to us....
-Sab

How is creationism DISPROVED?

Share this