Author Topic: Creationism Is Not Science  (Read 1876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2017, 08:42:29 AM »
Yep, that's about it! Mind, to be fair to TruthSeeker, every philsophical argument has been 'engineered' to arrive at the right conclusion including ignoring what we know about the material world in the case of the infamous Kalam argument. The only real question is, why do believers need to go to such length to try and show their pet god exists when, according to their religion, his miracles ought to be easily discerned?


However, TS can't escape the problem that either his god can be detected  in the process of altering the material of a human brain involved in praying, in which case the god is detectable, or this god can't be detected in which case it is useless. 'Special methods of communication' still come down to a god changing matter because we are all material beings.


As mentioned, TS could show us the dome over the earth with heaven sat on top of it - I mean, we must be able to see it from space telescopes.... mustn't we......
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)

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8549
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2017, 09:53:59 AM »
To put it simply, that points out the biggest flaw of all in TruthSeeker's argument.  There is no reason to presume that the brain - which has no sensory organs built in - could sense something that an apparatus of some kind could not be built to detect.  Indeed, if no apparatus could detect something, that would necessarily include the brain, which is essentially a very complicated biological apparatus.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Emma286

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2169
  • Darwins +103/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2017, 11:01:08 AM »
I guess that when we experience things like emotional and physical pain, it's to do with some indirect way that the brain communicates with the nerves in our bodies.

It can sure as heck seem direct though, given that pain communication can happen very rapidly!

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2017, 12:14:32 AM »
Thank you everyone for your input.

Wheels5894, you say “his miracles ought to be easily discerned” it would be helpful if you define ‘his’, ‘miracles’ and ‘discerned’ and present a logical argument for your conclusion.

You say “god can be detected in the process of altering the material of a human brain” and “god changing matter”, this is a presupposition that “material is altered”, maybe it’s possible interaction with ‘God’ doesn’t alter anything material in the human brain, we don’t know, so that is why I say “IF”.  So your point does not falsify my logical argument.   In my argument I say “IF”.   It might be a highly unlikely “IF”, but it’s there.  The only thing I presuppose is the definition of science.

Regarding your proposed “dome over the earth”, IF such a thing is non-physical, then a telescope won’t see it.   Again the definition must contain “IF” for the logical argument to make sense.

Anfauglir,
You say I state as the premise “that humans have some kind of non-physical communication ability.”   You misquote the presented logic because it includes the word “IF” regarding the non-physical and the non-physical senses of humans.   It would be helpful if you quote the premise correctly because the “IF” makes a lot of difference to the meaning of the premise.

You ask me to “Define the god you are attempting to prove.  Is it Biblegod?  Does it ever manifest physically?  Does it ever interact with the world?”

My answers are Q1, yes.  Q2, there are stories of it manifesting physically.  Q3, there is some non-scientific evidence of its interaction with people and the world.

So how do we do this ‘non-scientific’ research?   Let’s look at a typical claim: “John says he saw a 10 foot tall very shiny man with wings and a sword suddenly appear and disappear again.”   Do you classify this typical type of eyewitness account as a tiny little piece of non-scientific evidence for or against the existence of such a non-physical being?

In my “IF” statements I define a ‘God’ who interacts with humans in a non-physical way.   Maybe a logical statement about the non-physical will help, see below.

You say in your premise that “nothing can detect” the supposed metaphysical thing.  This is different to my premise because mine has an “IF” in it, it says “IF humans have senses that can detect more than just the physical”, I should probably word that to say “IF humans have non-physical senses” that’s clearer.

So yes your logical argument is correct, but your premise is different to mine, my premise asks what if it is possible that humans have a non-physical sense that can detect/interact with the non-physical?   How does science relate to that?   That is the question.   And since the clear definition of science limits it to the physical then it is helpful to look at the outcomes of that limitation.   All investigations of the non-physical are valid human endeavours, but they are not science.

A possible statement about the ‘non-physical’ could look like this:
The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
IF the non-physical exists (regardless of how unlikely),
Then:
1. Science must exclude the non-physical from its explanations and must only look at natural/physical/material explanations.
2. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ because it must by definition exclude anything non-physical.
3. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘the non-physical’” is circular reasoning because Science excludes consideration of ‘the non-physical’ in the first place.
4. The study of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ is not science.


Wheels5894,
You asked:
“1. Are you trying to define a god which does interact with the world or one that cannot be contacted by humans?”

Answer: Neither, I clearly define the remote possibility that what IF there is a ‘God’ who can interact in a non-physical way with humans and what IF humans have non-physical senses that can interact with ‘God’ in a non-physical way.   In this scenario is there a limitation of science?   The logical argument concludes that yes science is limited when it comes to the non-physical, see below.

“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?”

Answer, the problem here is you insert the material world, this is not what my argument is asking, my argument is asking about the non-physical, i.e. if it exists is there a limitation of science regarding it?  It appears so.

Maybe down the track, when we have some clarity regarding this ‘possible limit of science’ then we’ll be in a position to analyse some non-physical claim say maybe the resurrection of Jesus, that’s quite the non-scientific endeavour which has interesting implications.   But it’s not science.

Add Homonym,
Yes, people, as you say “shove God into any unexplained phenomena”, but when they do that do they clearly define that what they are doing is NOT science?   If they do not clearly define that then they are lying to our face, or completely misguided about what science is.

If you look up my posts from 2011 and 2012 you will see that back then I used to think that science revealed ‘God’, leads us to ‘God’, but I didn’t understand the definition of science back then, and thus I was wrong!!   The clear definition of science as “knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe” is what we must keep in mind and in doing so we realise that science does not lead us to ‘God’ because it excludes ‘God’ by definition.   And thus realising this helps us to realise that to find ‘God’ we need to investigate the non-physical and recognise that this type of investigation is by definition NOT science.   It is a valid human endeavour, but it’s not science.


Velkyn, you say I “cling to the idea of a god”, maybe I do, but in the logical analysis presented it actually asks the question, it doesn’t say “god exists”, it says “IF”, which makes all the difference.


Albeto,
Maybe the best way to answer all your questions at once is to go through an example, the same one I proposed to Anfauglir above:

Let’s look at a typical claim: “John says he saw a 15 foot tall very shiny man with wings and a sword suddenly appear and disappear again.”   

Do you classify this typical type of eyewitness account as a tiny little piece of non-scientific evidence for or against the existence of such a non-physical being?

Azdgari, yeah supernatural is a good word too, but I’ll stick with ‘non-physical’ for now.

Foxy Freedom, you ask “Do you deny that the creation story can be tested to be consistent with reality?”

All I’m asking is if the ‘non-physical’ exists how does science relate to the ‘non-physical’?   That’s really all I’m asking?   And so because the ‘creation story’ includes a ‘non-physical’ explanation the test with reality will be a non-scientific test, but yeah there exists a test, it’s just not science.


Jaimehlers, we can say all kinds of things about creationism, but really, all I’m asking is how science relates to the possible existence of the ‘non-physical’?   

I don’t presume the brain can sense the non-physical, I say “IF”, which changes the meaning of the premise.

You also present an example argument saying:
“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.”

Your example premise is correct and helpful.   It makes one wonder, can we have as a premise: “The non-physical does not exist.”?   Do you propose this premise?   


So with some wording changed to hopefully add clarity and with emphasis added the IF’s in the premise we have the following:


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 non-physical 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 any claim of 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 claims of the non-physical sensed by people is not science.


Thank you for your assistance.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2017, 03:51:00 AM »
Well, TS, let's see what we can do for you.


1. Miracles and their discernment. 


Well, Christians, according to the NT, can pray for things to happen - though I doubt moving mountains is popular! However, prayers for the healing of people is and millions if not billions of people do this. The full means of doing this is to get the elders to anoint the ill person with holy oil and pray over him. So if this worked, why would we have hospitals? It would be obvious to all that a god was working to help people and to heal them.


2. The Brain and the Mind.


You seem to suggest that a god might plant his thoughts into the mind of  believer without changing anything material. This implies that you think the mind is separate from the brain and immaterial. You could have some problems with this idea. You will be aware of the various and many studies looking at people with damaged brains from injury and illness and how they affect the mind. This could not happen if the mind was immaterial, now could it? So we can reasonably say that the mind is is an effect generated by the physical brain. To alter thoughts, then, the material brain has to be 'modified' in some way.


3. Definition of god?


Well, if you think it is a remote possibility that there is a god that can affect the material world then I will agree with you. However I think you limit science unnecessarily. Science is a method not a thing. It involves 'observing' something, coming up with a hypothesis to explain it and then  testing the predictions of the hypothesis. This method is limited only be what we can 'observe' - the quotes to show that this word is not limited to our senses but also to instruments too.


2. Events for test?


Your idea fails as the are only tow possibilities - that there is no interaction between the supposed immaterial world and the material world in which case we cannot know the immaterial world  exists never mind knowing anything about it. The only other choice is that the immaterial world interacts with the materiel world and it would be at the points of interaction that research could proceed.


As for Jesus, there is far to little accurate data to analyse anything. There is certainly not enough to conclude a miracle took place as there are more ordinary explanations that could explain it.
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 #34 on: June 20, 2017, 04:46:05 AM »
Truthsearcher - please refrain from answering multiple persons in one post - it makes it very difficult to follow conversations.  This will also allow you to use the Quote function rather than having to reference their words.
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 #35 on: June 20, 2017, 05:09:59 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?

Anfauglir,
You say I state as the premise “that humans have some kind of non-physical communication ability.”   You misquote the presented logic because it includes the word “IF” regarding the non-physical and the non-physical senses of humans.   It would be helpful if you quote the premise correctly because the “IF” makes a lot of difference to the meaning of the premise.

The trouble is, I am unfamiliar with any kind of formal argument construction where you have a "possible" premise.  The whole point of Premises in an argument is that they are definite statements that you are making on which the argument rests.  As I actually said, you are relying on the fact that your premise is correct for the argument to have any chance of making sense: which is why I see no need to even look at the argument until you have established the premises.  As has been mentioned many times to (apparently) no avail, it is perfectly possible to construct a valid argument with ridiculous premises.  But what on earth would be the point?


You ask me to “Define the god you are attempting to prove.  Is it Biblegod?  Does it ever manifest physically?  Does it ever interact with the world?”

My answers are Q1, yes.  Q2, there are stories of it manifesting physically.  Q3, there is some non-scientific evidence of its interaction with people and the world.

Good.  Then the god you are discussing CAN be scientifically measured and described.  If something has physical presence in the world and physically interacts with it, then it can be examined.

So yes your logical argument is correct, but your premise is different to mine, my premise asks what if it is possible that humans have a non-physical sense that can detect/interact with the non-physical? 

And at that point, as I have said, we stop before the argument, because premises are NOT "possibilities" - they are statements of actuality that must be true if the argument is to be sound.

(Incidentally, our premises are not different at all, regardless of the "IF" that you are desperate to insert.  If we were chatting generally, then there are indeed differences between "it is the case" and "what if?".  But when you are using them as in an argument, that IF assumes the True for the argument to function, and so the IF becomes extraneous - and the premise requires to be proved).

What if it IS possible that humans have a non-physical sense?  What if there are unicorns on Mars?  What if pigs could fly?  You can make up whatever argument you like if you don't want to, or cannot, support your premises, and it may be valid as hell.  But so what?

Why are you so interested in constructing a valid argument, and so uninterested in making sure it is sound?
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 #36 on: June 20, 2017, 08:46:48 AM »
Velkyn, you say I “cling to the idea of a god”, maybe I do, but in the logical analysis presented it actually asks the question, it doesn’t say “god exists”, it says “IF”, which makes all the difference.

and since you have nothing to support this god you evidently need to cling to, your argument is nonsense.  As has been demonstrated, your logic fails from the outset.  There is no reason to assume your god exists *at* all.  There is no reason to think that humans have some magic power.  I can claim I can communicate with my philodendron here, but there is no evidence for it, and no reason to believe me. 

Thinking about this, your tactic is nothing new in more than one way.  I've seen this before where a theist wants to get atheists to buy into a bit of nonsense like this (please just consider this without pointing out how my *if* are baseless), and then after they think this happens, they bring out what they think is evidence for their god, as a "gotcha" moment.  The inevitable result is that the supposed evidence is ripped apart and the theist again vanishes... 

to often return after a few months with yet one more attempt to dress up their god in more faulty nonsense. 

as for this claim about JC "Maybe down the track, when we have some clarity regarding this ‘possible limit of science’ then we’ll be in a position to analyse some non-physical claim say maybe the resurrection of Jesus, that’s quite the non-scientific endeavour which has interesting implications.   But it’s not science." 

it is a physical claim, since there were alterations to reality that your book of myths claim.   Add to this the other claims of this god interacting with the world, and we have you trying argue against what your bible says, to invent a god of your own. 
"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 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 #37 on: June 20, 2017, 10:51:32 AM »
Foxy Freedom, you ask “Do you deny that the creation story can be tested to be consistent with reality?”

All I’m asking is if the ‘non-physical’ exists how does science relate to the ‘non-physical’?   That’s really all I’m asking?   And so because the ‘creation story’ includes a ‘non-physical’ explanation the test with reality will be a non-scientific test, but yeah there exists a test, it’s just not science.

Quote
If you look up my posts from 2011 and 2012 you will see that back then I used to think that science revealed ‘God’, leads us to ‘God’, but I didn’t understand the definition of science back then, and thus I was wrong!!

Guess what! You are still wrong about science. All science needs to do is test if something is consistent with reality. Is it science to test whether the moon is made of green cheese made by fairies? Yes. The absurdity of the statement or the explanation is irrelevant. The result of the statement can be tested to see if it is consistent with reality. Science tests the result of a statement. It is irrelevant how it came about.

So is it science to test the creation story? Yes. So why are creationists not scientific? Because they are chasing a disproved claim (through incompetence and lying).

Quote
Regarding your proposed “dome over the earth”, IF such a thing is non-physical, then a telescope won’t see it.   Again the definition must contain “IF” for the logical argument to make sense.

The dome is described as holding up the waters above the Earth and having doors in it which can be opened for water to come through such as the flood. It was also not very high above the flat earth since the tower of Babel could have reached it.

Quote
So how do we do this ‘non-scientific’ research?   Let’s look at a typical claim: “John says he saw a 10 foot tall very shiny man with wings and a sword suddenly appear and disappear again.”   Do you classify this typical type of eyewitness account as a tiny little piece of non-scientific evidence for or against the existence of such a non-physical being?

John is not writing an eyewitness account. He is writing a theological tract in the form of a biography. This is clear from his changed dates for the crucifixion and his use of Lazarus who was a fictional character in one of Luke's parables.

Quote
A possible statement about the ‘non-physical’ could look like this:
The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
IF the non-physical exists (regardless of how unlikely),
Then:
1. Science must exclude the non-physical from its explanations and must only look at natural/physical/material explanations.
2. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ because it must by definition exclude anything non-physical.
3. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘the non-physical’” is circular reasoning because Science excludes consideration of ‘the non-physical’ in the first place.
4. The study of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ is not science.

You have not learned how to model reality with logic either.

It should start like this:

The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
Conditions
IF the non-physical exists (regardless of how unlikely),
Conclusions


Quote
1. Science must exclude the non-physical from its explanations and must only look at natural/physical/material explanations.

This is a tautology of the premise, not a conclusion.

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

False. This does not follow from the premise and conditions. It adds extra assumptions and conditions about the nature of evidence.

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

False. This does not follow from the premise and conditions. It adds extra assumptions and conditions about the nature of evidence.

Quote
4. The study of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ is not science.

False. This does not follow from the premise and conditions. It adds extra assumptions and conditions about the nature of evidence.
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 wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2017, 10:55:52 AM »
I think this is more a question of reading story books and eventually thining they might be real. The trouble is that humans, generally, consider some story books more likely to be true than others. After all, no one thinks the Norse legends about gods are true, nor the Roman or Greek ones and not even the Egyptians ones[1] However, the Qur'an and the Bible seem to be accepted as different from these previous ones and at least thought of as sacred.

Neither TS or anyone else can get any inkling of the possibility of gods apart from what is read in these various books. Sure, anyone can make up a new idea of a god but the chances are it won't go far these days. So then belief and demonstration of belief are confined to the holy books and philosophy[2] The sad fact for TS and others is that neither way has found any way to actually show there must be a god - or even that the possiblity is worth looking at.
 1. This is slightly exagerated as, I think, there are a small groups in Iceland and Greece supporting their local gods.
 2. When it is done properly of course!
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)

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8549
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2017, 11:59:40 AM »
Jaimehlers, we can say all kinds of things about creationism, but really, all I’m asking is how science relates to the possible existence of the ‘non-physical’?
Exactly the same way as it relates to every other thing which can be conceived of but as yet has not been shown to exist, as well as everything that has not been conceived of, and everything that has been shown to exist through science - as something that warrants investigation.  That's one of the reasons why we're challenging your logical proposition - because it essentially tries to put things "out of bounds" for science, which is not acceptable.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
I don’t presume the brain can sense the non-physical, I say “IF”, which changes the meaning of the premise.
The problem is, this turns your whole premise into speculation, which is not particularly useful at the best of times.  When dealing with something that isn't particularly well-defined, it's next to useless.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
Your example premise is correct and helpful.   It makes one wonder, can we have as a premise: “The non-physical does not exist.”?   Do you propose this premise?
Such a premise would be non-scientific because science cannot show that things do not exist.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
The Premise:

Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
This is incorrect.  Science is knowledge, and understanding, and study, period.  This is what I meant when I said that this looks like you are trying to put things out of bounds for science.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
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;
Talking about abilities that a conceptual being has is much less useful than talking about Superman's X-ray vision and freezing breath and so on.  You can define a conceptual god how you want, but given that the size of the space of conceptual things is exponential to the size of the space of possible things, and the size of the space of possible things is exponential to the size of the space of actual things, the then the size of the space of actual things is about the size of an atom compared to the entire universe.  Smaller, probably.  In short, a particular concept isn't even worth considering unless there is sufficient evidence to show that it's worth looking for.

Imagine playing Battleship with the same five ships, but with a grid that is the size of our galaxy.  It wouldn't even be worth playing without something to give you a hint of where the ships might be - to rule out sections of the grid which cannot possibly have anything in them.  And that would be much less difficult than what you're actually proposing.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
IF humans have non-physical 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’).
Same problem as before, but worse.  You're basically taking two things out of concept-space and trying to base your premise on them - which means you multiply the probability of one by the probability of the other.  Given that the probability of just one of them is smaller than an atom compared to the universe, the probability of both put together is far smaller than that.  Not even worth considering, never mind putting into a logical argument.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
Then:
It is not even worth considering the rest of your argument because your premise is too improbable to even be worth considering for a microsecond.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1178
  • Darwins +219/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2017, 08:44:46 PM »
Albeto,
Maybe the best way to answer all your questions at once is to go through an example, the same one I proposed to Anfauglir above:

Let’s look at a typical claim: “John says he saw a 15 foot tall very shiny man with wings and a sword suddenly appear and disappear again.”   

Do you classify this typical type of eyewitness account as a tiny little piece of non-scientific evidence for or against the existence of such a non-physical being?

Until you understand what science is and how it works, details like evidence (what it is, how it works) will be lost. In your example here, you imply eyewitness claims suffice as evidence. There are problems with relying on eyewitness testimony as evidence when extraordinary claims are made (in fact, eye-witness testimony of "non-physical" events was formally rejected by Courts of Law following the Salem Witch Trials). Eyewitness claims are used to support Wiccan, Hindu, Muslim, astrological, beliefs, among others. I knew a guy who claimed to astrally project. Are the standards identical regardless of the religion or belief? There are more people who claim to have witnessed Bigfoot than Jesus. Is Bigfoot real? There are more people who claim to have been abducted by aliens than have claimed to have witnessed Jesus. Does testimony about experiencing and interacting with non-earth beings "count" more than just witnessing them do stuff?

It sounds as if much of your argument ultimately rests on the value of eyewitnesses, despite its unreliability and despite superior methods of obtaining information. This is most famously advocated by Ken Ham, and here's a lighthearted video that illustrates why this is such a silly approach.



Azdgari, yeah supernatural is a good word too, but I’ll stick with ‘non-physical’ for now.

What's the difference?

Foxy Freedom, you ask “Do you deny that the creation story can be tested to be consistent with reality?”

All I’m asking is if the ‘non-physical’ exists how does science relate to the ‘non-physical’?   That’s really all I’m asking?   And so because the ‘creation story’ includes a ‘non-physical’ explanation the test with reality will be a non-scientific test, but yeah there exists a test, it’s just not science.

I'm curious why you don't answer Foxy's question. I understand you have questions of your own. I'd be curious in your answer as well.

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8549
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2017, 09:26:09 PM »
As a small addendum to albeto's point, eyewitness accounts are not very trustworthy even at the best of times.  For example, it's long been known that eyewitnesses will remember things differently, even getting seemingly obvious details like color wrong.  On top of that, memory is malleable and so a person can easily change their own memories over time, or by discussing it with other people, whether or not they saw the event in question.  And that doesn't even touch on false pattern matches and other ways that people can think they saw something that they actually didn't.

To put it simply, a single eyewitness (or even a bunch of eyewitnesses) seeing something extraordinary is not going to be very believable (except to people who want to believe it).  But if, say, those eyewitnesses started taking pictures with their phones, or someone caught it on a video camera, then the preponderance of evidence starts to shift the balance towards being worth believing.  That's another reason why your logical theorem doesn't work very well - by ruling out scientific evidence (such as that detected by an "apparatus" of some kind), you have used special pleading to elevate things like eyewitness accounts to a primacy they do not deserve, and one you cannot really justify.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2017, 02:33:16 AM »
Let's not forget, either, that we can be completely deceived by our minds. For example, it is apparently quite common for a person to see a recently deceased relative sitting in thei favourite chair. We all have the expereince of seeing faces where there are none - in clouds for example.

So an eyewitness to an event cannot be sure of what they saw and, if in the case of a 15' man with a sword,  there is no other evidence of this, one is unlikely to believe the person - even if they claim to be an eyewitness, precisely because there is no other evidence.
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 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 #43 on: June 23, 2017, 11:59:04 PM »
Quote
So how do we do this ‘non-scientific’ research?   Let’s look at a typical claim: “John says he saw a 10 foot tall very shiny man with wings and a sword suddenly appear and disappear again.”   Do you classify this typical type of eyewitness account as a tiny little piece of non-scientific evidence for or against the existence of such a non-physical being?

John is not writing an eyewitness account. He is writing a theological tract in the form of a biography. This is clear from his changed dates for the crucifixion and his use of Lazarus who was a fictional character in one of Luke's parables.

I guess you mean a random John and not the biblical author who claimed there were two angels in white. I don't call this a typical claim by a random John. It would surprise me if it was claimed as typical which is why I thought you were talking about the biblical author. It is a good example of a mental block caused by a bizarre claim. It kinda says how way out you are.

Taking your example as a claimed eyewitness account, does science have anything to say about it? Yes. The claimant lacks the ability to distinguish between reality and imagination, and has a psychological problem. Any person who is not suffering from indoctrination can immediately say that the eyewitness account is due to psychology. Likewise, any person who is not suffering from indoctrination can say that angels in the bible are fiction. It is a measure of someone's lack of indoctrination that they can see that this is equally fictional. "Lo, a green elf appeared and did speak to Mary promising her good fortune." Would you say that you are not sure about the green elf?

There are general patterns of distorted thinking caused by religious indoctrination which we see on this site and on the Atheist Experience. These include, the inability to distinguish between fact and fiction in the bible, between reality and concepts, between good research and bad research, claims that experts are wrong and the religious person knows better without having any expertise, mental blocks to protect beliefs, circular arguments and repeated claims of refuted arguments.

What really shows up distorted thinking is when a religious person tries to use logic or mathematical reasoning, as in extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



Quote
Quote
A possible statement about the ‘non-physical’ could look like this:
The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
IF the non-physical exists (regardless of how unlikely),
Then:
1. Science must exclude the non-physical from its explanations and must only look at natural/physical/material explanations.
2. Science is not an analysis of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ because it must by definition exclude anything non-physical.
3. The statement “There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ‘the non-physical’” is circular reasoning because Science excludes consideration of ‘the non-physical’ in the first place.
4. The study of the evidence for/against the existence of ‘the non-physical’ is not science.

You have not learned how to model reality with logic either.

It should start like this:

The Premise:
Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
Conditions
IF the non-physical exists (regardless of how unlikely),
Conclusions

First, all the information you use should be in the premise which is the definitions and conditions you are going to talk about. The argument is invalid if you don't start with those.

Next you have split your conditions and pretended that they are conclusions. You don't have proper conditions or conclusions.

Next you are using the wrong type of logic for this argument, since science is not an object but a set.

Next you have not defined the supernatural which is also a set, not an object.

Next your supposed conclusions are false, invalid and unsound, so you have made all the main mistakes and some.

I was going to let you work out all the problems in the argument for yourself a little at a time but your thoughts are so confused by indoctrination that you and I will probably run out of patience before you get to the correct argument. So I am going to do most of the work for you...Thank me later...

Definition
Science is the set of falsifiable claims.
Definiton
The supernatural is the set of claims violating non-falsified models of reality.
Condition (to be completed by you)
Some supernatural claims....
Conclusion (to be added by you)

What you will find is that any supernatural claim that matters is scientific. That means that any supernatural claim that matters is falsifiable with enough evidence. Supernatural gods don't exist. They are intuitive errors based on badly defined concepts.

United States law enshrined falsifiability as part of the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial.

Take away message...indoctrination messes up your brain.
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 wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #44 on: June 24, 2017, 05:38:44 AM »
Not to forget that we do not have any eyewitness testimony in the bible. The NT, for example, is written long after the events  - long enough for any possible event to have been transformed by exagerated story telling... of intentional manipulation by people intent on promoting themselves and their religious agenda.
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 TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #45 on: June 24, 2017, 05:07:28 PM »
Well, TS, let's see what we can do for you.


1. Miracles and their discernment. 


Well, Christians, according to the NT, can pray for things to happen - though I doubt moving mountains is popular! However, prayers for the healing of people is and millions if not billions of people do this. The full means of doing this is to get the elders to anoint the ill person with holy oil and pray over him. So if this worked, why would we have hospitals? It would be obvious to all that a god was working to help people and to heal them.


2. The Brain and the Mind.


You seem to suggest that a god might plant his thoughts into the mind of  believer without changing anything material. This implies that you think the mind is separate from the brain and immaterial. You could have some problems with this idea. You will be aware of the various and many studies looking at people with damaged brains from injury and illness and how they affect the mind. This could not happen if the mind was immaterial, now could it? So we can reasonably say that the mind is is an effect generated by the physical brain. To alter thoughts, then, the material brain has to be 'modified' in some way.


3. Definition of god?


Well, if you think it is a remote possibility that there is a god that can affect the material world then I will agree with you. However I think you limit science unnecessarily. Science is a method not a thing. It involves 'observing' something, coming up with a hypothesis to explain it and then  testing the predictions of the hypothesis. This method is limited only be what we can 'observe' - the quotes to show that this word is not limited to our senses but also to instruments too.


2. Events for test?


Your idea fails as the are only tow possibilities - that there is no interaction between the supposed immaterial world and the material world in which case we cannot know the immaterial world  exists never mind knowing anything about it. The only other choice is that the immaterial world interacts with the materiel world and it would be at the points of interaction that research could proceed.


As for Jesus, there is far to little accurate data to analyse anything. There is certainly not enough to conclude a miracle took place as there are more ordinary explanations that could explain it.

Regarding your first point, it is obvious the context of the letter from James is not talking about making people live forever, so we need to take that into account.

In your second point you raise an interesting topic because human thoughts are not measurable or observable, it is scientifically impossible to determine a thought of a person, so this actually leaves open the possibility that a person with a damaged body could be having thoughts that we know nothing about just like a person with a normally functioning body also has thoughts we know nothing about.   So this point you make is actually evidence that there is a non-physical aspect to humans and validates asking the question about the relationship between science and the possibility of the non-physical existing.

Regarding your 3rd point you show the limits of science quite clearly here, when an observed phenomena displays non-physical properties (i.e. an angel appearing and disappearing) a scientific report on the incident is limited to natural/physical/material explanations and cannot conclude angels exist.    Whereas a non-scientific investigation into the incident can conclude that maybe the person’s claim is a tiny piece of evidence that angels do exists.   But the author of such a report should state clearly that they are not doing science, just like creationist papers need to state clearly that they are not doing science.

Regarding 4, Yes people research these points of interaction all the time, but keep in mind that a scientific research paper on the interaction MUST only have natural/physical/material conclusions it cannot say ‘goddidit’.

Regarding the death of Jesus, of course you conclude this, you are remaining scientific, and thus to have a scientifically valid conclusion you exclude the non-physical from the conclusion.   Also the data around Jesus death and resurrection doesn't lead to ‘ordinary explanations’ as you say.   Roman soldiers allowing a criminal to survive a crucifixion is far from ordinary, or Roman soldiers allowing a body to be stolen from under their guard is far from ordinary, so you might want to clarify why you use the word ‘ordinary’.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2017, 05:19:27 PM »

You ask me to “Define the god you are attempting to prove.  Is it Biblegod?  Does it ever manifest physically?  Does it ever interact with the world?”

My answers are Q1, yes.  Q2, there are stories of it manifesting physically.  Q3, there is some non-scientific evidence of its interaction with people and the world.

Good.  Then the god you are discussing CAN be scientifically measured and described.  If something has physical presence in the world and physically interacts with it, then it can be examined.

Why are you so interested in constructing a valid argument, and so uninterested in making sure it is sound?

Yes it can be investigated, but if the investigation includes a ‘goddidit’ explanation then it is not science and will not be published in a scientific journal or taught in science class.

I think the continuous improvement of the logic is evidence that I am interested in it being sound.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2017, 05:22:36 PM »
Velkyn, you say I “cling to the idea of a god”, maybe I do, but in the logical analysis presented it actually asks the question, it doesn’t say “god exists”, it says “IF”, which makes all the difference.

and since you have nothing to support this god you evidently need to cling to, your argument is nonsense.  As has been demonstrated, your logic fails from the outset.  There is no reason to assume your god exists *at* all.  There is no reason to think that humans have some magic power.  I can claim I can communicate with my philodendron here, but there is no evidence for it, and no reason to believe me. 

as for this claim about JC "Maybe down the track, when we have some clarity regarding this ‘possible limit of science’ then we’ll be in a position to analyse some non-physical claim say maybe the resurrection of Jesus, that’s quite the non-scientific endeavour which has interesting implications.   But it’s not science." 

it is a physical claim, since there were alterations to reality that your book of myths claim.   Add to this the other claims of this god interacting with the world, and we have you trying argue against what your bible says, to invent a god of your own.

I’m just trying to work out the relationship between science and the non-physical when science can’t say ‘goddidit’.

It sounds like your premise is “‘God’ does not exist”?  Although keep in mind that jaimehlers says “Such a premise would be non-scientific because science cannot show that things do not exist”.   So then what is your premise? 

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #48 on: June 24, 2017, 05:26:04 PM »

So is it science to test the creation story? Yes. So why are creationists not scientific? Because they are chasing a disproved claim (through incompetence and lying).

I don’t know of any scientific paper that analyses the evidence of how something was created from nothing, if you know of one please reference it for us.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #49 on: June 24, 2017, 05:28:51 PM »
This is incorrect.  Science is knowledge, and understanding, and study, period.  This is what I meant when I said that this looks like you are trying to put things out of bounds for science.

A rocket scientist cannot design a rocket based on ‘god is going to make it fly’, so science must be limited to the natural/physical/material.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #50 on: June 24, 2017, 05:31:14 PM »

I'm curious why you don't answer Foxy's question. I understand you have questions of your own. I'd be curious in your answer as well.

Of course I think the creation story, any creation story, can be tested to be consistent with reality, it’s just not science, so we need to treat it that way.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #51 on: June 24, 2017, 05:34:05 PM »
Taking your example as a claimed eyewitness account, does science have anything to say about it? Yes. The claimant lacks the ability to distinguish between reality and imagination, and has a psychological problem. Any person who is not suffering from indoctrination can immediately say that the eyewitness account is due to psychology. Likewise, any person who is not suffering from indoctrination can say that angels in the bible are fiction. It is a measure of someone's lack of indoctrination that they can see that this is equally fictional. "Lo, a green elf appeared and did speak to Mary promising her good fortune." Would you say that you are not sure about the green elf?

I was going to let you work out all the problems in the argument for yourself a little at a time but your thoughts are so confused by indoctrination that you and I will probably run out of patience before you get to the correct argument. So I am going to do most of the work for you...Thank me later...

Definition
Science is the set of falsifiable claims.

Foxy Freedom, when you classify all people who claim to have seen or experienced the non-physical as people with psychological problems it actually sounds like your premise is “The non-physical does not exist.”   If this isn’t your premise, then what is?

Your definition of science still implies that only natural/physical/material claims are falsifiable, if this is not what you meant then please rewrite your definition of science with some more clarity on its implications.

Offline TruthSearcher

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #52 on: June 24, 2017, 05:37:38 PM »
Taking a step back and just focusing in on the relationship between science and ID I propose the following:

The Premise:
1. Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.

2. The concept called ‘evolution’ exists, this concept states that everything in the natural world came from pre-existing material in a simpler form (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).

3. The concept called ‘ID’ exists, this concept states that nothing in the natural world evolved at all but every natural thing was specially created by an intelligent designer (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).

4. It is possible that an intelligent designer exists (regardless of how unlikely, it is possible).

Therefore:

In light of the definition of science the concept of evolution is scientific (because it only analyses natural/physical/material explanations) and (in spite of the fact that most proponents of ID claim that the concept is scientific) the concept of ID is not scientific (because it brings a non-physical being into the analysis thus violating the very definition of science).

Following this, and specifically relating to origins science, then because of the definition of science:

1. When a natural explanation is presented for the origin of something in nature and it’s the only natural explanation that has been thought of so far, then regardless of how unlikely the explanation is it is still included in the theory of evolution because only natural explanations are allowed for the theory to remain scientific, i.e. Origins Science is just the best natural explanation we have thought of so far.

2. The concept of evolution is a direct result of the definition of science, there could be zero evidence for evolution and it still would be presented as science because science has no other option but to have a natural explanation for the origin of nature.

3. If there is evidence of ID, it cannot be classified as scientific evidence, it must be classified as un scientific evidence.

4. It is more fitting to place ID in the field of theology.

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3001
  • Darwins +223/-2
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2017, 08:04:11 PM »
If there is evidence of ID, it cannot be classified as scientific evidence...

   Even with your argument, I disagree with that statement.  Why can't evidence of intelligent design be studied by science?  Humanity is certainly still looking for it for centuries.   Think of Galileo in the 1600s and the reception from theology when he introduced the idea of the sun in the center of the solar system.  Then Mendel's  peas and the idea of genetics in the 1800s.  The atom, pe nicillin, DNA, the Hubble telescope and deep space.   At least we can hope theology doesn't stand in the way as science looks for ID and continually finds a natural universe with evolution and an organized organic chemistry, that leads to brains asking "why" and realizing existence just is.   So possibly no deities have ever existed.   And then, I feel that much more responsible to what we have become naturally and what our descendants will continue to do.
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8549
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #54 on: June 25, 2017, 12:26:30 AM »
A rocket scientist cannot design a rocket based on ‘god is going to make it fly’, so science must be limited to the natural/physical/material.
Sorry, gotta jerk you to a halt here.  Science is plain and simply not limited in the way you seem to think it is.  Science can work on anything that can be shown to exist.  By extension, that means anything that does exist has the potential to be analyzed by science, even if science as we understand it has not reached that point yet.  So, if a god existed, it could be analyzed by science, at least well enough to confirm its existence.  And that's really all there is to it.

If humans actually have "non-physical means" of detecting or communicating with a god, then we could plug that into scientific methodology and work with it.  Your logic cannot work as long as you fail to allow for that.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8549
  • Darwins +1087/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #55 on: June 25, 2017, 01:03:46 AM »
The Premise:
1. Science is knowledge/understanding/study of the natural/physical/material universe.
Per my statement above, science is not locked into only "natural/physical/material" things.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
2. The concept called ‘evolution’ exists, this concept states that everything in the natural world came from pre-existing material in a simpler form (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).
This is not at all what evolution is about, TruthSearcher.  Because of that, this premise cannot currently stand.  It doesn't even work as a general premise because evolution as a concept is not about going from "simple -> complex".  Evolution as a concept is about gradual changes that something undergoes over time.  For example, biological evolution is about gradual changes in organisms over time; stellar evolution is about gradual changes in stars over time, and so on.  There is no rule that it must progress from simple to more complex.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
3. The concept called ‘ID’ exists, this concept states that nothing in the natural world evolved at all but every natural thing was specially created by an intelligent designer (regardless of how unlikely, this concept does exist).
As a general summary, this might work; however, there are other versions of Intelligent Design which cannot be discounted, such as the idea that this Intelligent Designer only designed some things and allowed natural processes to work unhindered on others.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
4. It is possible that an intelligent designer exists (regardless of how unlikely, it is possible).
Certainly, but what if the probability is 1/3^^^3?  That number is so tiny that the human mind cannot even comprehend how small it is.  It is so small that to simply calculate it would require an inconceivable amount of time.  Basically, 3^^^3 creates an exponentiated tower of threes that is over 7 trillion digits high.  Simply writing this tower of threes down, at one digit a second, would take more than two hundred thousand years to complete.  I have no idea how long it would take to actually calculate the number out, but I do know that it would be a complete and total waste of time to even attempt it.  Now, by inverting that number, I can present a probability that, while still possible, is so insignificant that it not only isn't worth calculating, it isn't even worth dwelling on for any amount of time.  And that number, 3^^^3, is the smallest of the inconceivably large numbers.

In short, this premise isn't workable, because there is no way to meaningfully evaluate the actual probability of a universal intelligent designer existing.  And as I showed with the inconceivably huge numbers above, we do get to the point where the "it's still possible" argument fails miserably.  We're talking a level of probability that is far less likely than being able to fall into a black hole without getting spaghettified by its tidal forces.  Technically speaking, the probability of avoiding spaghettification still exists, right, no matter how improbable...but I doubt you'd find anyone willing to put it to the test.

Quote from: TruthSearcher
Therefore:
As all four of your premises are, at best, flawed, there is no point in even going through the rest of your logic.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4481
  • Darwins +290/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Reply #56 on: June 25, 2017, 05:00:47 AM »
Quote
Regarding your first point, it is obvious the context of the letter from James is not talking about making people live forever, so we need to take that into account.

No, quite, but healing people.... come on, it doesn't happen, does it?

Quote
In your second point you raise an interesting topic because human thoughts are not measurable or observable, it is scientifically impossible to determine a thought of a person,...

Are you sure of this Truithseeker? Read this
We may not have got there yet but we are working on it.

Quote
Regarding your 3rd point you show the limits of science quite clearly here, ...

No, my third ppoint is about a definition of god. Nothing can be looked for ig we have no idea what we might find. You opnly need to look into the work by Peter Higgs on the Higgs Boson or Dirac's work that predicted the positron to see that an accurate description is needed before we know whatn to look for.

As far as investigating a god is concered, well we would have to look into the interactioons between it and the world we live in. Religions tell us he interacts, changes the materail world for healings etc. so all posible places to look. Witness evidence of angels or whatever is too difficult to assess, People sometimes see things that just aren't there.

Quote
Regarding 4, Yes people research these points of interaction all the time, but keep in mind that a scientific research paper on the interaction MUST only have natural/physical/material conclusions it cannot say ‘goddidit’.

This is really exciting. Point me to the research! Oh, and no, whilst science probably would not say goddidit they are likely, if the evidence showed it, to say an unexplained source did it. More resaearch would then be carried out to investigate the source. This is precisely where that definition comes in. If we were on the hunt for a god this is essential because we might be able to match the definition to experimental findings. Of course, the defintion would need to come before the research - one can'r retrofit defintions to match the results of research!
 
Quote
Regarding the death of Jesus, of course you conclude this, you are remaining scientific, and thus to have a scientifically valid conclusion you exclude the non-physical from the conclusion.   Also the data around Jesus death and resurrection doesn't lead to ‘ordinary explanations’ as you say.   Roman soldiers allowing a criminal to survive a crucifixion is far from ordinary, or Roman soldiers allowing a body to be stolen from under their guard is far from ordinary, so you might want to clarify why you use the word ‘ordinary’.

OK, firstly, there is a lack of evidence surrounding Jesus' death since the only sources for it are written by those claiming it happened 40 years on and were using it to spread a religion. No one noticed it at the time - no one wrote it down even though Roman historians were about and even Pilate had no records.

Secondly, the whole story is improbable. Pilate was known as a rather tough guy who rulied with a rod of iron so to speak. He was not a one who would do what the Jewish leadership wanted. The so-called trials of Jesus in the middle of the night and so on are fanciful. Finally the idea that the body of a crucified person woould be handed back is laughable. The whole point of crucifiction was humilation in public. There would be no nice burials. In all likelihood the bodies ended up in the town rubbish dump covered in quick lime.

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 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 #57 on: June 25, 2017, 07:17:14 AM »
Foxy Freedom, when you classify all people who claim to have seen or experienced the non-physical as people with psychological problems it actually sounds like your premise is “The non-physical does not exist.”   If this isn’t your premise, then what is?

It is not a premise, it is a conclusion. I gave you the evidence for it, including this summary.

What really shows up distorted thinking is when a religious person tries to use logic or mathematical reasoning, as in extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your own confusion about logic in this thread, and your avoidance of completing the logical argument I started for you, shows that I am correct about indoctrination confusing people's minds.
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