disturbing.
How is creationism DISPROVED?
by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
sabastious
You don't have a stalker
If you stopped stalking me I wouldn't have one.
disturbing.
That's how EP runs this thing he is doing. He has already admitted he comes into my threads trying to give me enough rope to hang myself. And then he says I should be thankful for it. I would spit in his face if he said that in front of mine. Instead he hides behind "just words on a screen" like a coward.
-Sab
-
Etude
" I have methods to personally validate my own observations. "
Exactly. That's what I was alluding to. It's like determining distance with your own measuring stick instead of using a yard like everybody else. It's like creating your own calendar and time keeping while everyone is on a 24-hour clock, 7-days per week and 365 or so days per year. YOU HAVE TO USE THE SAME TOOLS AS EVERYONE ELSE! Sorry for raising my voice. What that entails is a logical set of steps and a recognition or at least an acknowledgment of fundamental concepts.
Every scientist is different and a unique individual. If they happen to agree on the same rules (from fundamental laws to the procedure of peer review), they don't cease to be unique in personality. Believe me, just because I want to be in a consensus regarding what we're talking about doesn't mean I want to be like you or anyone else.
" I very well could be operating with a sense that you not unaware of the existence of ." OK. So you're saying that you have an extra or unique sense that nobody else can detect and perhaps that's what gives you special insight. Yeah, it could be. But if you want to discuss the things that such a sense provide for you with others, you either have to explain it or explain how it works (the mechanism of it) so that other's can see how it advances truth or discovery. If people can't relate to it, all hope is lost in a conversation. Meantime, it seems to me that this whole exercise started by your post must have been prompted by your need for validation. Otherwise, why even bother posting. You could and will continue to exist without this conversation.
" I do explore other people's ideas or else I couldn't rightly call myself a scientist. " So, are you a scientist or do you merely call yourself a scientist? I you are certified to bear the title, what specific area of Science are you trained in? I don't mean to insinuate that because you don't have the certification that your scientific exploration is bad or inadequate. Nevertheless, the title does come with some pre-requisites. That's why I'm asking. Once the rigor is established, I can ask you things in terms of those disciplines. Otherwise we're right back to your internal interpretations.
" However if you simply say that because I have not yet stated my criteria that I cannot use the results I have obtained from using them, then I will discount what you have to say." Well yeah, I kinda am saying that you can't state a conclusion to anyone unless you have demonstrated legitimate foundations or reasons. I'm further saying in order for your conclusion to be true, your foundations have to also be true. For that, whomever you're trying to persuade has to be able to verify them, not just you. Isn't that why you presented this thread? What you say in your statement above is what is colloquially referred to as putting the cart before the horse. You're saying: "Trust me, I know I'm right because I've done the work." OK. Then show the work and let those who see decide if you did the work correctly.
" what I am asserting is that belief is warranted because of the inability to disprove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe." OK. I mentioned that to you and I would agree that there is an inability to disprove the claim. What you don't agree with is the opposite: that disbelief is warranted because of our inability to prove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe. As it turns out, both conclusions are technically incorrect. The right answer is that there is no conclusion to be made because either case cannot be proven. That is why Agnosticism is a valid stance. I think I know what you're thinking, that since you already have the proof for the first condition (" But you can prove the positive "), the inability to disprove the claim validates your premise and therefore an intelligent being created the universe. The problem is that you're unable to concede or even consider the contrary position, even though you could embark on an exploration of it and challenge it. It seems to me that you may have it backwards:
a. disprove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe."
b. prove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe."
Which is the positive and which is the negative. You said: "But you canprove the positive, you just can't prove the negative". I equate "disprove" with "negate" and equate "prove" with "affirm". Now, look at your original premise and tell me which you think is negative and if perhaps you have a different definition of the polarity of "proof" and "disproof". I think your claim is that you have accomplished b. And the only reasons for it I recall were that our senses tells us (at least yours) this and that ancient history demonstrates that He has endeavored to guide us. That is pretty shaky.
" Those hidden fields of study could easily have rudimentary schemas developed by ancient cultures. " and " something could have CHOSEN that expansion to happen " and " I would say that it could be different and therefore... " Yes indeed. But when there's no proof for that, at least a very substantial indication, it really should not enter into consideration let alone be offered as possibility for concluding the next thing. That is pure speculation on an unknown. Listen to your wording: "could easily have", could have CHOSEN", "could be different" and so on. That is not the scientific method. That is what is called speculation.
Yes, it's nice to have respect for your ideas. But remember, respect is also earned. I guess that's why I was saying that in order to have a meaningful discussion, you need to consider what other's are saying and identify what their saying with accepted norms of logic. If you just use your own senses and your own findings, you'll have a hard time persuading others. It seems to me that's one of your aims otherwise you wouldn't bother posting on this site.
And no, you don't play by the same rules. That thing about Einstein is old hat. He believed in Spinoza's god and Spinoza believed that god is essentially the universe (and vice versa). To Einstein, order did not mean an intelligence. There's evidence that contradicts your findings. That's not playing by the same rules.
You say: "...at a crime scene, you have to establish a motive or else you don't have a case." No. The case is there. A motive establishes which type of case. The case exists even if there was no motive to be found. What you're trying to do is establish a motive as a solution for the case. No. There are details, many details to be worked out even if you know who did it and why they did it. You have to show how and cough up the details and the wherefores.
I think you have hit an impasse and frankly so have I. Unless you address specific question put to you and listen to why a conclusion you make is unfounded, you will simply be spinning your wheels here. I wish you the best of luck.
-
sabastious
Etude I thank you for your presentation, it was well put together. I too see an impasse, but you have given me a lot to think about. I thank you for the time you have spent with me, it's been much appreciated. Feel free to come into other threads in the future or post about more ideas I put into this thread. Just know that I am not really trying to convince anyone, I just would like to be heard and challenged. This is all for me, not anyone else and once I get to the end of the path I am on, I will be better prepared to describe the process. Just know that it's incredibly difficult to express. In the meantime there will be mystery, but that doesn't mean I should have my entire ability of critical thinking questioned. I am a scientist in training, but still a scientist. I am willing to put my ideas out there and that should never be discouraged in anyway or else we all might miss something special from what seems to be a small voice in the world.
-Sab
-
EntirelyPossible
If you stopped stalking me I wouldn't have one.
Words on a screen, Sabby. No one is stalking you. If you thinkl I am stalking you, then you are wrong. I really really don't care enough to stalk you. That sounds like work and I have better things to do like Fantasy Football, golf, work, hang out with my kids, sexy time with my girlfriend, political news, camping, having a cigar, making dinner, email, catching up on SOA, etc.
Get serious help. I mean it.
That's how EP runs this thing he is doing. He has already admitted he comes into my threads trying to give me enough rope to hang myself. And then he says I should be thankful for it. I would spit in his face if he said that in front of mine. Instead he hides behind "just words on a screen" like a coward.
Sab, you need SERIOUS help. You alternatively claim I am a stalker, then that I am just words on a screen, then that you will kick my ass then that you love me. You have some fast switching mania going on. You need help. Go get it. There are people that need you and people that care about you. Get the help you need to get whole and have a life with your wife and kids.
-
tec
Well said, Sab. Whether others are going to agree or not with your ideas, you do put yourself out there, placing much thought into expressing them in honesty and sincerity.
Peace to you,
tammy
-
tec
He has help, EP. He has serious help.
But hopefully he takes my advice and does not engage with you, the same as i hope you do the same, and go to your respective corners, and leave one another be.
Peace,
tammy
-
EntirelyPossible
Tec, I just sent you a PM. Let me say this publicly before November start (for me) and I don't engage for 30 days. You have most of this in a PM.
Sab is a grown man. He puts himself out there with lies, twisted representations of ideas, distortions of others opinions, libel about what other people say. He will get called on that. I know he has issues, but if he wants to jump in the game, he can't complain that everyone doesn't re-write the rules to suit him or slow down to his speed. He has to keep up and play by the existing rules.
His talk about how he is superior is offensive. His obvious made up stuff about history is offensive.His distortions about science are offensive. His continual misrepresentations of other people and their ideas is offensive. It's offensive, not because it's an idea we all need to get used to but, rather, because it is a lie.
Sab needs help. You say he is getting it, I say he needs more serious help if this is at the point where you say it is. He is displaying manic behavior (similiar to my brother) that leads one to say just about anything to justify however they are feeling at the moment without any reason, rationality, constancy or facts leading them anywhere. It's just a constant jumping from idea to idea and saying whatever he needs to say to justify in his mind whatever he needs to at that exact moment whatever he is trying to say. The trouble is, 30 minutes later, he is contradictng himself and saying something completely different and dissing his previous opinion from 30 minutes ago.
Anyway, I am going away for 30 days now, because you asked so nicely and apparently my words on the screen disturb Sab so much. Sab, get help. More and better than you are getting now. Enjoy November. If you want help, to talk, whatever, email me, [email protected]. I am not against you personally, at all. But, you don't get a free pass because you have issues.
Have fun without me, kids.
-
Etude
I'm glad if I can help. I can only imagine the burst of ideas going on inside you. I think that that overabundance is what drives some of us to tell the rest of the world, to be heard and considered. Do I have it right? Just remember that our reality in this respect is similar to a child learning to walk. You're going to fall and get hurt.
I suppose we could characterize that as bad. I, on the other hand, consider it necessary and an important part of the learning process. When I was a snot-nosed-know-it-all JW, my biggest fall was the deception I felt having lost my faith, my ideals, my family, my hope and my friends in a short span of time. I was alone and devastated, but I said: "Bring it on!" I had to not just explore other ways of thinking but I also had to live them and experience them (my "wild" days) in order to decide if they were right for me.
It took a while before I let myself question the only thing I had left, my belief in God. It took a while longer to do my own personal exploration regarding what I could and could not know. I was humbled by two things: Descartes "Discourse on the Method" and Einstein's "Theory of relativity" (Bantam 1964). Since then, I have not looked at the world the same way.
For me the profundity of it is that when I usually touch something or see a great sunset, I realize that I'm not touching anything (because atoms don't really touch) and I'm not seeing all there is (because I can't detect ultraviolet or infrared light with my eyes. That is present with me every single day. I also realized that we are prisoners of our own minds. That our perceptions, not just of our senses but also of what we interpret, can betray us; that there are limitations between what we hear from others and what others hear from us; that we could well be living in a dream that we must nevertheless assume is our reality. Cogito ergo sum. That's it. We can't really conclude much beyond that.
Up to then, my certainty about the world and about god was immutable. But after I was knocked on my ass when the carpet pulled from under my feet, I vowed to forever question everything, never be absolutely sure of anything and always leave room for a different explanation or a different understanding of reality. To say that I can now live with uncertainty is a very liberating thing indeed.
I hope that in your efforts to do for yourself (" This is all for me, not anyone else "), as it spills onto others, your thoughts will inevitably come under scrutiny. Be prepared. How do you do that? By using the tools that others can agree upon. Critical Thinking is more than an ability. It is discipline going back to Socrates; it uses reason and goes beyond an examination of facts; it also examines HOW we think; it involves thinking about thinking; it's methodological (explores discrete steps); it's self-critical (doubts to test). Think about that next time you present a topic.
Best wishes,
Etude.
-
braincleaned
// Thor and Zeus are real because they are based off known phenomenon and historical fact. //
Oh - and YHWH doesn't apply here? You are very inconsistant - and your cognitive dessonance is showing.