Author Topic: Creationism Is Not Science  (Read 1874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Creationism Is Not Science
« on: June 13, 2017, 06:56:41 PM »
Is this logic flawed?

The Definition of Science:

1. For Science to be Science it must by definition exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ and only look at natural processes.
2. Evolution Science (explanations of the origin of the universe and living things) must exclude any inference to ‘God’, or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ to be classified as Science.

Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.
2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

Please let me know if you see any flaws in this logic.

Thank you.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15076
  • Darwins +1128/-38
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2017, 08:12:43 PM »
Is this logic flawed?

The Definition of Science:

1. For Science to be Science...

What's that even mean?

... it must by definition exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’

By whose definition of what? Mainly, science ignores gods because gods are foolishly defined. Particularly the Hebrew god.  It is not scientists that define yhwh as "beyond science", but theologians, because every time allegations about yhwh have been tested, they are proven false.

and only look at natural processes.

If god is real (it isn't), then it is natural and would show up in the math of How Things Work.  It doesn't.

2. Evolution Science (explanations of the origin of the universe and living things) must exclude any inference to ‘God’, or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ to be classified as Science.

No.  It's that god isn't needed to explain anything.  Also, god doesn't explain anything.  If you are asking how life developed and the answer is "god" what does that even mean?

Therefore:

Nope.  The starting premises were wrong, so the conclusion is incorrect.
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1178
  • Darwins +219/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2017, 09:38:52 PM »
Is this logic flawed?

Yes. Quite. You might find this article helpful (How the Scientific Method Works).

Quote
The Definition of Science:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Quote
1. For Science to be Science it must by definition exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ and only look at natural processes.

Why? Says who?

How does one look at a non- or super-natural process? How is that done systematically and methodologically? How can accuracy be assured? How are non- or super-natural elements identified? Defined?

Quote
2. Evolution Science (explanations of the origin of the universe and living things) must exclude any inference to ‘God’, or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ to be classified as Science.

Putting the cart before the horse here. The scientific method gave us the theory of evolution over the course of centuries (good source of information can be found here: evolution 101).

Quote
Therefore:

Your premise is wrong, so this isn't looking good so far.

Quote
1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

Not quite. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of any gods because this evidence is lacking. Furthermore, compelling evidence to the contrary is continually found and confirmed. This evidence to the contrary has always been a natural explanation of phenomena. From understanding weather patterns to cosmological discoveries to mental and physical disease, never once has a natural explanation been revised to promote a magical explanation. This is despite early assumptions and presumptions that a god variable was at play. It simply has never panned out. Science doesn't include gods any more than it includes karma or ancestral spirits guiding events for the very basic reason that it's not reasonable to include them, despite personal belief in such things.
 
Quote
2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

You misunderstand. "There is no evidence for the existence of God" is a conclusion based on mountains of evidence that systematically fails to produce any indication of a non- or super-natural explanation.

Quote
Please let me know if you see any flaws in this logic.

Thank you.

You've been told some pretty foolish stories here, stories that are easily corrected with minimal [by 5th grade] scientific literacy.

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8548
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2017, 01:39:31 PM »
Science is the systematic, organized study of the natural world in order to develop knowledge about it.  Why are you trying to define it differently, TruthSearcher?

By the way, it is worth noting that science includes such things as genetic engineering, which is the deliberate alteration of an organism's genetic code by an intelligent agent (namely, us).  So, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that evolution must exclude a god or intelligent designer.  The problem with modern creationism is that it doesn't use science to come up with its conclusions.  It writes down the conclusions first and then looks for evidence which supports them, while disregarding or ignoring or manipulating evidence which contradicts them.

Science does not exclude anything by default, but there are many things which simply cannot be tested by science.  For example, we can't very well test the effects of Kryptonite on human beings until we actually find some Kryptonite that exists outside of comic books.  We also cannot test the creation and destruction powers of the Hindu god Shiva until we actually find said god.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16936
  • Darwins +327/-17
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2017, 03:01:35 PM »
considering this exchange I had with TS

Velkyn, just because I or you interpret the bible differently doesn’t mean there is no creator, just because someone doesn’t like the bible doesn’t mean there is no creator, what we need to do is let science lead us where it will and as far as I can tell it leads directly to a the conclusion that there must be a creator, I don’t want there to be a creator, but who am I to oppose what science so clearly shows.

I'm suspicious of the point of this thread. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2017, 08:16:33 PM »
Yes, Velkyn, I used to think that creationism and ID were science, but like a good truth searcher I’ve realised that creationism and ID do not align with the definition of science.   As Merriam-Webster says (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science) science is “knowledge concerned with the physical world” so seeing as creationism and ID include ‘God’ or ‘the metaphysical’ in their explanations it is by definition not science.

“The problem with intelligent design as a scientific explanation is that it can be used to explain in non-scientific terms literally anything, and that's why it is not science.”  Ken Miller (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial transcript September 27, 2005).

Yes, Jaimehlers, I agree with you as you say “science is the study of the natural world”.   However, I disagree with your example of genetic engineering because the actions of the engineer are known, observable, part of the physical world, so the recording of these human actions and the inclusion of them in the scientific analysis does not violate the definition of science, whereas creationism/ID include unobservable ‘metaphysical’ actions by a ‘God’, so “it is not science” (KM, 2005)

Exactly, Albeto, I agree with you as you say “How does one look at a non- or super-natural process?”   Science by definition is “concerned with the physical world” (Merriam-Webster), and so it must exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ from its explanations of how the world originated.

Yes, Screwtape, a definition of ‘God’ would be helpful, for simplicity and inclusion let’s just focus on the relevant aspect (to this logical argument) of the definition, the one that says ‘God is metaphysical’.   So having clearly defined the relevant characteristic of ‘God’ and the ‘Designer’ we can now look at the Definition of Science.

Science is “knowledge concerned with the physical world” (Merriam-Webster) and since ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ are defined as metaphysical, then science must exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ from its analysis and only look at natural processes.

Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

However, if there is an error in this logic I’d like to know about it.

Thank you for your assistance.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14099
  • Darwins +470/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2017, 08:38:45 PM »
1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

There is a bit of a misplaced assignment of action here, I think.  Humans are the ones who define things, so if A doesn't fit into category B by definition, that could be either a coincidence, or it could be that either A or B was defined specifically to avoid that fit.

In this case, I've personally observed plenty of people specifically define their concept of god so as to be beyond the abilities of humans to investigate it.  In such cases, it is "God", not science, that has been defined in order to yield the exclusion that you describe.  This makes a difference insofar as we consider folks' motivations.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Darwins +316/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2017, 09:54:17 PM »
Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

However, if there is an error in this logic I’d like to know about it.

The general method of advancing knowledge is not to prove something but to disprove it.

I suppose you know that the Earth is not flat with a solid dome above it.

The sun is not pushed around the Earth on a solid dome and cannot stop in the sky to give you extra time at a football match.

Animals were not created all at once, but appear over millions of years in an ordered sequence different from both the creation stories.

There was no worldwide flood and DNA shows that modern people are not descended from Noah but from all the surrounding cultures thousands of years before Noah's time.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8548
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2017, 11:25:56 PM »
Yes, Jaimehlers, I agree with you as you say “science is the study of the natural world”.   However, I disagree with your example of genetic engineering because the actions of the engineer are known, observable, part of the physical world, so the recording of these human actions and the inclusion of them in the scientific analysis does not violate the definition of science, whereas creationism/ID include unobservable ‘metaphysical’ actions by a ‘God’, so “it is not science” (KM, 2005)
You don't disagree with me, then.  You just misunderstood me.  Basically, my point was that a god would have to be a part of the natural world in order to do anything in it.  To argue otherwise would be special pleading and magical thinking, and that is where creationism and creationistic "intelligent design" founder.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

However, if there is an error in this logic I’d like to know about it.

Thank you for your assistance.
The error in your reasoning is that science doesn't actually exclude considerations of gods or intelligent designers.  They would just have to be able to interact physically with the physical world, which means they would necessarily be physical in some way, like how a human who intelligently designs something does so through physical work.  That means a god, or godlike being such as Q from Star Trek, must be part of the universe in some fashion.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6584
  • Darwins +468/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2017, 03:02:43 AM »
1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

Where these two statements go wrong for me is that you are seemingly trying to alter the nature of the god-reference between the two statements.

In statement 1, you are using "god" as effectively a set of rules or reasons.  Science, quite logically, DOES exclude "goddidit" when examining a phenomena because - quite literally - anything could be true.  For the same reason, science tends not to consider fairies, leprechauns, or Merlin as a potential cause for a phenomena.

In statement 2, you however shift "god" to the status of phenomena - but try to argue that because science excludes gods and fairies as reasons, it cannot therefore study them as phenomena - which is clearly untrue.  Define god, or fairies, and science can indeed consider the purported properties of that mystical creature, and test for those properties.

I'm sure this shifting of categories was unintentional - unfortunately it is a favoured trick of believers, which may be why you are getting a little more "flak" than might be deserved for an honest asking of the question.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16936
  • Darwins +327/-17
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2017, 07:13:56 AM »
Science is “knowledge concerned with the physical world” (Merriam-Webster) and since ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ are defined as metaphysical, then science must exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ from its analysis and only look at natural processes.

Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

However, if there is an error in this logic I’d like to know about it.

Thank you for your assistance.

that fails rather dramatically since most, if not all, theists claim that their god interacts with the physical world, and to do that, it must be part of it.  All you are doing is a rather poor version of Gould's non-overlapping magisterial.  It's just another invented gap for your god to hide in. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4747
  • Darwins +1031/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2017, 08:17:17 AM »
Science is “knowledge concerned with the physical world” (Merriam-Webster) and since ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ are defined as metaphysical, then science must exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ from its analysis and only look at natural processes.
Bit of advice: try not to get too hung up on definitions in dictionaries.  Dictionaries are very useful tools and all around pretty neato.  But don't start thinking that a dictionary is gospel :)

That being said, I notice that you're citing a definition from Merriam-Webster; in particular, one definition, and a subdefinition at that:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Why is that?  Do the other definitions that you are ignoring also lead to the same conclusions that you are arriving to with the definition you've put forward?

Quote
Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.
Did you want to arrive to the above conclusions for some reason?  That's a question for you to ask yourself but you can answer here if you like.

Quote
However, if there is an error in this logic I’d like to know about it.

Thank you for your assistance.
The error appears to primarily be a function of sanctification and deification of a book of words (in this case, the dictionary), thereby causing you to bury in a giant number of unspoken assumptions in your analysis without even realizing it.

You are welcome.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2017, 11:08:18 PM »
Jdawg70, a google search turns up the following definitions of science.  They all fundamentally say the same thing.   Focusing on the portion of each that is relevant to this logical analysis gives the following:

Science is:
“understanding of the natural” (http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-definition-of-science/)
“the systematic observation of natural events” (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html)
“typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material universe; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, which study logic and mathematics.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
“study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science)   
“systematic knowledge of the physical or material world” (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science)

So, for the purpose of this logical analysis let’s say that:
“Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.”

Regarding your question about what I want, I admit I don’t want there to be a ‘God’ because I don’t want there to be a ‘Hell’.   However I also want to know the truth regardless of its implications.

Velkyn, yes NOMA is similar, I’m not claiming any new concepts here, I’m just being open about the definitions of science and ‘God’ and the logical outcomes of those definitions.

Regardless of how much ‘god interacts with the physical world’, science does not allow ‘Goddidit’ as a scientific explanation.

It’s interesting that Wikipedia agrees with the logic I’m presenting: “the question regarding the existence of God, for which evidence cannot be tested, definitionally lies outside the purview of modern science” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God)

Anfauglir, the key characteristic of ‘God’ in this analysis is the ‘metaphysical’ one.   It is clearly defined as “God is metaphysical”.   The other aspects of ‘God’ are irrelevant to this analysis.

When you say “Define god, or fairies, and science can indeed consider the purported properties of that mystical creature, and test for those properties.”   You should have said what you actually meant and that is “Define [the physical properties of] god, or fairies, and science can indeed consider the purported [physical] properties of that mystical creature, and test for those [physical] properties.”

But we all know science can do that.

If we include the focus/point of the logical analysis (the metaphysical) then we can word it this way: “Define [the metaphysical properties of] god, or fairies, and science can [not] consider the purported [metaphysical] properties of that mystical creature, and [cannot] test for those [metaphysical] properties [because Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe].

So we see it is the question of the relationship between the metaphysical and science that we are analysing.

Jaimehlers, these logical statements aren’t trying to exhaustively define ‘God’, they are trying to define the relationship between science and the ‘metaphysical’.

So to include in a scientific explanation ‘god did this bit’ or ‘god is going to do this bit’ is scientifically pointless and dangerous, if an engineer designs a rocket ship based on ‘god’s going to make it fly’ then the lives of the astronauts are in danger.   Science must be based only on the physical.

“The problem with intelligent design as a scientific explanation is that it can be used to explain in non-scientific terms literally anything, and that's why it is not science.”  Ken Miller (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District trial transcript September 27, 2005).

Foxy Freedom, thank you for your statements, you imply that you believe your statements are scientific and I agree with you that they are because none of your statements say ‘Goddidit’ or include the ‘metaphysical’ so they qualify as science.

Azdgari, you raise a good point when you say “beyond the abilities of humans to investigate” but you imply that Science is the only mode of investigation, when it is not.

For example investigation of miracles, demons, angels and the human soul, by looking at historical records, 3rd person accounts, eye witness accounts and personal accounts are all forms of investigation that are not scientific because they are studying the ‘metaphysical’, but humans still have the ability to investigate them, it’s just not science.

Another example is creationism and ID, they are investigations into what ‘a metaphysical being’ may have done in the past, but it’s not science because they’re studying the ‘metaphysical’.

So, with some improved clarification what we have is:

The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ are metaphysical.

Therefore:
1. Science must exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ from its analysis (i.e. science can’t say ‘God did it/does it’) and must only look at natural/physical/material processes.

2. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.

3. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

4. The study of the metaphysical or analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ is a possible human endeavour, but it is not science.

In responding to this proposed logical statement, if you see an error in the logic it would be helpful if you present a complete logical statement with the error corrected.

Thank you for your assistance.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6584
  • Darwins +468/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2017, 02:23:30 AM »
When you say “Define god, or fairies, and science can indeed consider the purported properties of that mystical creature, and test for those properties.”   You should have said what you actually meant and that is “Define [the physical properties of] god, or fairies, and science can indeed consider the purported [physical] properties of that mystical creature, and test for those [physical] properties.”

Tip#1.  When you are asking for help - especially as a newcomer - telling someone "You should have said what you actually meant" is both rude and patronising.  It makes it look very clearly as if you are deliberately trying to frame the argument to support the conclusion you have already drawn.

And no: I did NOT mean "physical properties", so you are not only patronising, but also completely wrong.  More on this in a moment....

Despite your predilection for dictionary definitions, you have suddenly thrown in "metaphysical" without bothering to define it - I wonder why?  In philosophy, metaphysics deals with abstract thoughts or subjects.  More prosaically, relating to "a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses".

As a result, we can amend your premise as follows:

The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ is an abstract concept, and/or imperceptible by human senses.

...at which point, frankly, I see no point in continuing, as the question has become trivial.  Why on earth care about an abstract concept that humans cannot detect?  Certainly (given your purported fear of hell) this means that your worries about Biblegod become baseless, because - if we assume the Bible is even a slightly reliable source - we "know" that Biblegod is not only a very solid thing, but also quite, quite readily detectable to human senses.  There are reports of him speaking to and touching humans, as well as being clearly seen on many occasions - so not abstract, not "metaphysical" in any manner.

Which is why I was very clear in what I originally said.  I'm not just talking about direct physical qualities (although those are indeed clear and definite aspects of Biblegod and most others), but the purported character and motivations as well.  Psychology and sociology are most definitely science, and use scientific techniques to look at what might similarly be thought of as abstract concepts: how beings think and feel and relate to others.  So yes - I do stand by what I said originally:

“Define god, or fairies, and science can indeed consider the purported properties of that mystical creature, and test for those properties.”

Perhaps it might be useful for you to take a further step back, and actually define the god or fairy or pixie that you are referencing in your premise?  Because as present you seem to be trying to construct a solid logical argument without defining a crucial component of your premise - and that may be the problem.  You talk of "God" (with a capital - why?) and Hell, so (we presume) you mean Biblegod.  Yet your apparent definition in the argument is clearly NOT that of Biblegod - hence the confusion.

Define your terms and premise clearly - then the flaws in the argument will become more apparent, I think.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6584
  • Darwins +468/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2017, 02:34:10 AM »
Regarding your question about what I want, I admit I don’t want there to be a ‘God’ because I don’t want there to be a ‘Hell’.   However I also want to know the truth regardless of its implications.

Interesting.

Anyway, I get the feeling that you guys generally think God is an imperfect pathetic sadist.  So based on this opinion of him you say he doesn't exist because you don't want such a God to exist, but your opinion of him doesn't change the truth regarding his existence or non existence.   

Many “hope” there isn’t a creator because the idea of hell is just absolutely abhorant (I hate it myself and I hope there isn’t one, but as far as I can tell its real)....

....I don’t see why anyone would want to live forever in this very broken down world, that would be a disaster and illogical assuming the creator wants us to have the opportunity to change us into perfect people after we die, if we have given him the right to do so, otherwise he leaves us on our own after death, if that is what we want now, for him to leave us along, then he will continue to leave us alone after we die, he doesn’t force himself on anyone.

I hope you will understand why I have some extreme misgivings about your purported reasons for starting this thread?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16936
  • Darwins +327/-17
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2017, 07:30:50 AM »
Velkyn, yes NOMA is similar, I’m not claiming any new concepts here, I’m just being open about the definitions of science and ‘God’ and the logical outcomes of those definitions.

What you are doing is trying to make up new definitions to allow your nonsense to work.  As has been explained, if your god does interact with what we know as reality as theists repeatedly claim, then yes science does allow a "goddidit" explanation.  Wikipedia, while quite good in some cases, cannot be used to confirm your nonsense because, again, whomever wrote that sentence that you quoted does not realize that your god can certainly be tested for if it interacts with reality. 

as anfauglir has noted, there is reason to note that you ignore what you've been told, and keep returning here to make the same poor arguments and still will not define this "god" you keep nattering about.  All you seem to want is validation, a blind ignorant approval of something you cannot show exists to make you feel "right". 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 07:33:54 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1178
  • Darwins +219/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2017, 07:11:54 PM »
Exactly, Albeto, I agree with you as you say “How does one look at a non- or super-natural process?”   Science by definition is “concerned with the physical world” (Merriam-Webster), and so it must exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ from its explanations of how the world originated.

Are you always this dishonest, or just embarrassingly gullible? Your argument is begging the question, a problem that can be recognized and avoided with elementary scientific literacy. God is excluded from scientific exploration simply because it cannot, by its own understanding, be included. This is for practical reasons, not intellectual.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2017, 03:00:00 AM »
Albeto, I’d like to think that I’m generally honest, so obviously I’m gullible, I’m ok with you thinking I’m gullible.   When you say “God is excluded from scientific exploration” it kind of sounds like you agree with my logical analysis, so you might want to clarify what you mean.

Velkyn, the key to this logical analysis is the definitions, I don’t think what I’m presenting is anything fundamentally new, but it does need to be worded in a way that makes sense and so that is why I am asking for help and include suggested improvements.  As you say I have poorly defined ‘God’, so I have attempted to improve this in the new statement below.   Again I’m open to suggestions.
When you say “if your god does interact with what we know as reality as theists repeatedly claim, then yes science does allow a "goddidit" explanation” it would be helpful if you define ‘interact’, ‘reality’, ‘science’ and ‘goddidit’ and then present a logical argument for your conclusion.

Anfauglir, firstly please accept my sincerest apology, I see now that I was indeed rude and patronising.   This of course was not my intention, but obviously I didn’t carefully think through how what I was saying would be taken.

Second, your misgivings about my intentions are definitely valid, because I did indeed title this topic as “Creationism is Not Science”.   But I did this because regardless of any of our beliefs about ‘God’ this statement is true and so I thought it to be the best title for this topic.

Regarding these quotes of mine from 2011 and 2012, I still stand by those.  What has changed in my understanding since then is just that I have realised that Creationism and ID are not science.

Regarding the definitions of this logical analysis, as you suggested I have attempted to clarify them, see below.   And you’ll see that I have added in the concept of human senses because you quite correctly include them in your premise and I see that it actually helps to define them and include them in the logical analysis.

The Premise:

Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.

If the concept called ‘God’ is defined as a being not bound by the physical and holding the non-physical ability to create physical matter/energy/life out of nothing, and;

If humans have senses that can detect more than just the physical and interact with ‘God’ in a non-physical way (i.e. it’s kind of pointless to contemplate ‘God’ if we can’t interact with ‘God’).

Then:

1. Science must exclude this concept of ‘God’ from its analysis and must also exclude the non-physical sensed by people and must only look at natural/physical/material processes.

2. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ or the existence of the non-physical sensed by people because it must by definition exclude anything non-physical.

3. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science excludes consideration of ‘God’ in the first place.

4. The study of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ and the study of the non-physical sensed by people is not science.

Thank you for your assistance.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Darwins +316/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2017, 08:52:54 AM »
The Premise:

Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.

Ghost hunters disagree with you. Experiments on miracles disagree with you.

Quote
If the concept called ‘God’ is defined as a being not bound by the physical and holding the non-physical ability to create physical matter/energy/life out of nothing, and;

That is a definition of non existence. Poor thinking on your part.

Quote
If humans have senses that can detect more than just the physical and interact with ‘God’ in a non-physical way (i.e. it’s kind of pointless to contemplate ‘God’ if we can’t interact with ‘God’).

If you are claiming to do this you need professional help.

Quote
Then:

Your conclusions are unsound.

Quote
Thank you for your assistance.

You're welcome. Thank me sincerely after you understand what I have written.

Quote
Regarding these quotes of mine from 2011 and 2012, I still stand by those.  What has changed in my understanding since then is just that I have realised that Creationism and ID are not science.

You are completely wrong. Creationism and ID are science. It is creationists and ID people who are incompetent liars. They imitate scientific methods but do not use evidence based thinking. This is actually a more general problem. There are many people with PhD's in all subjects who are trained in evidence based methods but do not use evidence based thinking. You can see some of them on programs like Ancient Aliens.

Creationism and ID are science and they have been proved wrong. DNA alone disproves them. DNA alone also shows that evolution is correct, without needing to look at a single fossil.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8548
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2017, 09:05:51 AM »
You're kind of making this much more complicated than it needs to be, TS.  In order to be scientific, something must utilize the scientific method.  Informally, this can be summarized by saying that you start with observations and evidence, come up with explanations for them, then test the explanations repeatedly to make sure they work, modifying the explanation so it fits all the available facts.

Creationism goes astray because it starts with an explanation, and then only looks for evidence that supports the explanation, disregarding what doesn't fit.  Since it fails to take disconfirming evidence into account, it thus cannot be scientific.  That's really all you need to say; the fact that it relies on metaphysical stuff isn't a fatal problem in and of itself, though you do have to account for Occam's razor as a result.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2854
  • Darwins +316/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2017, 10:21:53 AM »
Quote
Regarding these quotes of mine from 2011 and 2012, I still stand by those.  What has changed in my understanding since then is just that I have realised that Creationism and ID are not science.

A simple question. Do you deny that the creation story can be tested to be consistent with reality?
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14099
  • Darwins +470/-40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2017, 10:52:11 AM »
Azdgari, you raise a good point when you say “beyond the abilities of humans to investigate” but you imply that Science is the only mode of investigation, when it is not.

For example investigation of miracles, demons, angels and the human soul, by looking at historical records, 3rd person accounts, eye witness accounts and personal accounts are all forms of investigation that are not scientific because they are studying the ‘metaphysical’, but humans still have the ability to investigate them, it’s just not science.

Another example is creationism and ID, they are investigations into what ‘a metaphysical being’ may have done in the past, but it’s not science because they’re studying the ‘metaphysical’.

Things that are done are not metaphysical.  They are physical.  You are misusing the term "metaphysical" here.  "Metaphysical being" is a contradiction in terms.

Also, looking at historical records, 3rd person accounts, etc., are potential lines of scientific investigation.  And a real being's actions in the world wouldn't only leave their mark on human observations, but also on the world itself.  So there's not even a reason to make a distinction between investigation of humans (the things you listed) and investigation of non-humans (everything else).

You don't mean metaphysical, TS.  You mean supernatural.
I always say what I mean. But sometimes I'm a sarcastic prick whose tone can't be properly communicated via text.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1178
  • Darwins +219/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2017, 12:36:13 PM »
Albeto, I’d like to think that I’m generally honest, so obviously I’m gullible, I’m ok with you thinking I’m gullible.   When you say “God is excluded from scientific exploration” it kind of sounds like you agree with my logical analysis, so you might want to clarify what you mean.

Are you okay with being gullible? I ask because your approach is not consistent with one searching for knowledge and information but with one searching to legitimize his beliefs. In any case, I don't agree with your logical analysis. Your analysis is terribly illogical but you seem impervious to the reasons why. I say that because despite the explanations given, you continue to fall back on your faulty premise. Furthermore, you cannot or will not recognize how the premise is faulty. I must conclude that either you're stubborn and refuse to look any other way, or you are unable to see the logical flaws. You say you're generally honest, so this would suggest the cognitive dissonance is too great for you to consider information that does not conform to a deeply held belief. (I don't know if that would be considered lying to yourself because you're likely not really in charge of that part of your mind that "protects" you from potential emotional trauma. While it's still you [obviously], it's not like you are in control of this process. I think this raises a really interesting question, but maybe too far off the track.)

If humans have senses that can detect more than just the physical and interact with ‘God’ in a non-physical way (i.e. it’s kind of pointless to contemplate ‘God’ if we can’t interact with ‘God’).

Which human senses detect more than just the physical? How do they do that? Explain this process please. Which organs are responsible for picking up this supernatural stimuli, and what is the process that detects the stimuli to be supernatural rather than natural? How is the supernatural identified when it cannot be identified or measured by non-human natural means? How would an objective observer know when a human is sensing the supernatural accurately? Does this process support alternative supernatural theories, like Islam or Wiccan or Numerology? If not, why not? How do you know? Do you believe there is a difference between knowing something to be true and believing something to be true?


Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6584
  • Darwins +468/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2017, 04:42:33 AM »
PREMISE:
If humans have senses that can detect more than just the physical and interact with ‘God’ in a non-physical way.....

Shall we just stop there?

If your premises are flawed or incorrect, then it doesn't matter HOW sound your argument may be, the conclusions will be wrong.

In this case, you are stating as a premise that humans have some kind of non-physical communication ability.  Any proof for that?  Or is that just a circular argument to pull your god into the equation?

Of course there WILL be no proof, because you have carefully constructed the argument to ensure that you don't HAVE to prove it....because it falls into "metaphysical" and therefore untestable.

That's not to mention, of course, that you've kept your definition of "god" deliberately vague and woolly, nothing more than "magic!", to ensure that your argument will hold true.

Nor to mention the fact that the Biblegod that you (presumably) want to shoehorn in to the argument has on numerous occasions allegedly manifested in perfectly physical and testable form.  But that would invalidate your argument, so you have presumably ignored those inconvenient appearances.

If you TRULY want to test your arguments validity - as opposed to trying to construct an apology that you can use as a gotcha  - then answer the questions.  Define the god you are attempting to prove.  Is it Biblegod?  Does it ever manifest physically?  Does it ever interact with the world?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16936
  • Darwins +327/-17
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2017, 11:55:12 AM »
Velkyn, the key to this logical analysis is the definitions, I don’t think what I’m presenting is anything fundamentally new, but it does need to be worded in a way that makes sense and so that is why I am asking for help and include suggested improvements.  As you say I have poorly defined ‘God’, so I have attempted to improve this in the new statement below.   Again I’m open to suggestions.
When you say “if your god does interact with what we know as reality as theists repeatedly claim, then yes science does allow a "goddidit" explanation” it would be helpful if you define ‘interact’, ‘reality’, ‘science’ and ‘goddidit’ and then present a logical argument for your conclusion.

You're right, it isn't anything new, and it is still an attempt to find a gap for your god.  You keep running from one new attempt to the next and you still fail.  You've just invented one more new "god" and it's still nonsense, it keeps getting vaguer and vaguer, until it is meaningless.  However, you still cling to the idea of a god.

Why do you so desperately need a god, TS? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8548
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2017, 12:31:53 PM »
As Anfauglir said, logic is only as good as it's premises.  Any logical proposition can be perfectly valid - the logic follows from the premises - and still fall apart because it isn't sound, meaning the premises don't work.

For example, if I said as a premise that I could fly, and followed with the conclusion that I would not need a parachute, it would be a valid conclusion.  But without the ability to fly, the fact that it is valid does not matter, because it would not be sound.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4458
  • Darwins +434/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2017, 01:21:23 AM »
Is this logic flawed?

The Definition of Science:

1. For Science to be Science it must by definition exclude ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ and only look at natural processes.
2. Evolution Science (explanations of the origin of the universe and living things) must exclude any inference to ‘God’, or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ to be classified as Science.

Therefore:

1. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.
2. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘God’” is circular reasoning because Science necessarily excludes consideration of ‘God’ or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the first place.

Please let me know if you see any flaws in this logic.

Thank you.

God is illusive, by our current methods of observing or defining God. Therefore, in order to find or study God, you need to understand how what we CAN easily observe works. So, we know planets travel in complicated elliptical orbits and chemical reactions occur in certain ways. If we were to find chemical reactions that defied our theory, then that would be a possible place for God to enter, and I'm sure someone like Rupert Sheldrake or the Pope would propose it, then pretend that the new reactions have intelligence. If the new observable facts can be shown not to have any intelligence, then you more than likely have to continue looking for a new mechanistic way of explaining chemistry. Someone will always try to shove God into any unexplained phenomena, because he is a general purpose gap filler, and source of hope - even though nobody knows anything about him.

But in order to find God, you need to understand how what is not God, works.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2017, 06:17:32 AM »
Oh dear, what a shame for TS. He seems to have forgotten that for a god to be worth worshipping rather than just known about, it has to be detectable to humans. If a god is going to hand over it thoughts, or rules, it has to do so to material humans. So, it all goes on definitions, TS.


1. Are you trying to define a god which does interact with the world or one that cannot be contacted by humans?


Then we have the real question - if there is a god that interacts with the world, science can investigate it. However, first, we would need to make observations of a claimed event happening. For example, if someone prays, surely the matter in the brain of the person must be affected by the god when he passes on his thoughts. There must be some mechanism by which the thoughts of the person praying can make their way to the god - presumably the god must know that the person is about to pray and collects the thoughts in some way. The odd thing is that no religious organisation has ever thought that investigating the matter would be worthwhile.....


2. So, TS, can you point to events that might be testable by science - events that a god would have to intervene in the material world to achieve something?


The problem is that a god that never interacts with the material world is not a god one can worship[1] The non-detectable god would, in effect, be the deist god which is interesting to talk about but of no earthly use.
 1. presuming worship needs the worshipped object to know it is happening.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6584
  • Darwins +468/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2017, 06:57:41 AM »
1. Are you trying to define a god which does interact with the world or one that cannot be contacted by humans?


Then we have the real question - if there is a god that interacts with the world, science can investigate it. However, first, we would need to make observations of a claimed event happening. For example, if someone prays, surely the matter in the brain of the person must be affected by the god when he passes on his thoughts. There must be some mechanism by which the thoughts of the person praying can make their way to the god.....

See, the interesting thing that TruthSeeker is doing is carefully constructing his parameters so that his logical argument makes sense.  So not only is the definition of the "god" he is attempting to discuss made clear has no detectable interactions with the universe, but that there is also some ability or sense possessed by humans that CAN communicate with that god - but, again, in a way that no apparatus can or could detect.  So he has already excluded brain changes as the result of prayer from the argument.

Essentially, the premises and argument he wants to discuss is as follows:

PREMISE: Suppose there exists a thing that is metaphysical (woo!  woo!) that nothing can detect.
ARGUMENT: Because we can only study and consider the existence of things we can detect, we cannot study or consider the existence of god.
CONCLUSION: Therefore - aha! - god COULD exist, because my argument shows you can never study it and therefore can never prove it isn't there!  See?  My god could exist!
FOLLOWED BY:  ".....since my god COULD exist, we can therefore assume A and B and why not Pascal's Wager and prayer works! and.......".  And so on, I suspect, with a convenient (by this time) ignoring of the very first premise - that his god is entirely undetectable in any interaction it has with the universe.

I could be doing him a grave disservice, though having read previously threads (and the ignoring of particular questions and points in this thread) I very much doubt it.

But if I AM doing him wrong, then the relevant question becomes:  If indeed there IS a thing that we cannot detect, and cannot know in any circumstance whether it is intervening in the universe or not.....

.....then who gives a toss if it exists or not?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?