Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Chatter / Re: What are you watching on TV?
« Last post by carstensenscott on Today at 10:02:36 PM »
Same dude did both so im the they are both a smash.
I once talked to my brothers dog for two days whilst on Jimson weed. Haha.8)
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by shnozzola on Today at 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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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).


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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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...

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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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? 
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Creationism Is Not Science
« Last post by TruthSearcher on Today at 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’.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10