Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

You are not examining actual evidence of any kind if you are led to that conclusion since there is no existing justification to support your claim of a 6,000-year-old Earth.

</p>

<p>I have already stated my reasons for suspecting old-earth claims. Should I restate them?</p>

<p>As for that paper, I shall try to find time to read it, as it looks interesting.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Human-dinosaur coexistence never happened. It’s pretty much a fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. That is validated through far more than one method or instance.

</p>

<p>What are the methods you think have validated it? (Please do not go off on another MM-is-ignorant rant, I simply want you to state your views before I address them.)</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Sorry, but under no circumstances are you going to resolutely convince individuals that dinosaurs were magically created and fell extinct within the past 6,000 years. So you believe that they concurrently existed with man? The temporal requirements of dinosaur fossil formation extends beyond 6,000 years.

</p>

<p>Ok, I see that you are unwilling to even consider that viewpoint…</p>

<p>Why do you think the “temporal requirments extend beyond 6,000 years”?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

On the other hand, your beliefs have no rational or logical foundation, no basis in reality, no means of validly explaining our universe, are not testable against nature, appeal to emotion rather than reason, and are not subject to peer review.

</p>

<p>When have I appealed to emotion at any point in this argument?</p>

<p>How is your belief “The world just is” more testable than my belief “the world is because something caused it to be” when in the one case no explanation is proposed, and in the other the explanation is outside observeable reality? both beliefs have an equal ability to explain our universe, as both assume that the world is predictable and thus past observations can be used to predict future events.</p>

<p>As for “peer review”, you apparently discount anyone who disagrees with your view as being a “peer”? To claim the “creation” theories should only be reviewed by evolutionists is like saying that the heliocentric theory should only have been reviewed by geocentric scientists.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Where did you obtain or dream up this “molecules in the brain” nonsense?

</p>

<p>

@foodfromhell

What I do is because of what my brain tells me to do, a process that’s largely deterministic.

</p>

<p>

@foodfromhell

We dont do what we should do because we decide to. We do those things because we are demanded to by an unbroken chain of causes and effects.

</p>

<p>If you have a different explanation of how thought works please explain.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Yes, they do. Continuously holding true to a faith in a 6,000-year-old Earth is an exercise of irrational conservatism based on pseudo-intellectual foundations. Your view regarding the blemished nature of radiometric dating methods holds absolutely no authority with respect to observable fact. There is a profusion of substantive evidence regarding their verification, using independent and dissimilar radiometric procedures and through consistent findings with many non-radiometric means.

</p>

<p>All I can see is a he-said-she-said kind of argument. Without knowing the actual data, I can’t make a judgement as to who is correct. Some things I can confirm, though, and so far I hold to the 6,000 year age. As I said before though, that is not a part of my core beliefs so much as my current opinion.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>MosbyMarion, I know you believe in the young earth theory strongly, but it’s not validated by science. Historical records(i.e remnants of past civilizations) show evidence of civilization existing at least 5,000 years ago, even without carbon dating. I doubt civilization could have arisen from Adam and Eve in 1,000 years. Even within the context of the bible, a 4 billion year old Earth is possible is one assumes that time runs differently for God.</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

^ I’m starting to really hate this “religion” thing you keep talking about. The thing is, it doesn’t resemble what I believe, or what my Bible says.

your bible says you must stone adulterers, stone homosexuals, kill people who eat shellfish or wear clothes that have two types of fiber.</p>

<p>Your bible says that when you cause a miscarriage, you must pay the father of the woman you hurt a number of shekels. Your bible says that intolerance is alright and your bible says that even good people who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ go to hell.</p>

<p>To hell with your bible.</p>

<p>Oh any by the way, these things arent “metaphors”. It pretty clearly says that eating shellfish is an abomination. It’s very explicit in all these statements. If you pick and choose excerpts from the Bible to follow, you’re not really a follower of the Bible now are you?</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

I say “the universe has certain base properties of energy from which all other properties are derived. These properties were initiated by something outside of observable reality, which is defined here as ‘god’.”

</p>

<p>Why is this initiated by a Christian god or even a sentient one? What prevents this unknown being initiating the entire process from being a completely natural entity that has no mind of its own? Both explanations are plausible under your own assumptions yet you go directly to the sentient omnipotent and omniscient god. There’s no evidence whatsoever that the being you imagine is supernatural (exists outside nature)…</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

Namely, it is our genetic inheritance that explains why those without the intrinsic obligation to follow some human-created, superficial moral system still operate in accordance with a social consensus.

</p>

<p>The question that is actually at issue here is one that you ignore: Why do I have an obligation to humanity as a whole, to the species or myself? </p>

<p>The entire line of reasoning stems from a positive answer to that question, one that is conspicuously absent with evidence from anyone’s posts.</p>

<p>

1. Yes, indeed. My arguments have consistently argued in favor of such, as religious ideology, by its very foundation upon celestial being(s), fundamentally has no basis in reality.

</p>

<p>False – you would need to show that religion CANNOT be true (as in, empirically disprove each religion) in order to claim that it has no basis in reality.</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>MosbyMarion, can we have the evidence that promotes a 6000 year old Earth? You merely say you don’t “trust” carbon dating or other evidence that scientists have put forward towards a much older Earth. What makes you believe the Earth is indeed only 6000 years old?</p>

<p>

As for “peer review”, you apparently discount anyone who disagrees with your view as being a “peer”? To claim the “creation” theories should only be reviewed by evolutionists is like saying that the heliocentric theory should only have been reviewed by geocentric scientists.

</p>

<p>The proper analogy would be that any geocentric theory of the solar system would only be reviewed by scientists who subscribe to the heliocentric view of the system because any astronomer worth a damn understands that this solar system would have its center of mass around the Sun. Geocentricism, like religion, is a belief that is false and relies upon the overstatement of man’s importance in the scheme of things.</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

False – you would need to show that religion CANNOT be true (as in, empirically disprove each religion) in order to claim that it has no basis in reality.

</p>

<p>The burden on proof is on theists. If I claimed there’s an invisible elephant in my backyard, it’s my obligation to prove its existence, not your’s to disprove it. Similarly, it’s not the atheist’s obligation to show empirical evidence for the nonexistence of God but the theists obligation to show empirical evidence for the existence of God. This is something theists cannot possibly do for obvious reasons.</p>

[itsinreach]

<p>“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
-Albert Einstein</p>

<p>'nuff said</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

The burden on proof is on theists. If I claimed there’s an invisible elephant in my backyard, it’s my obligation to prove its existence, not your’s to disprove it. Similarly, it’s not the atheist’s obligation to show empirical evidence for the nonexistence of God but the theists obligation to show empirical evidence for the existence of God. This is something theists cannot possibly do for obvious reasons.

</p>

<p>I agree completely. But the following claim needs to be proven by the person who made it:</p>

<p>“Religion has no basis in reality.”</p>

<p>That is fundamentally saying that it is false. Your elephant example DOES have a basis in reality because it is inherently a description of reality, whether or not it is correct.</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
-Albert Einstein

</p>

<p>The problem arises that when religion and science clash, science always wins since science advocates provable facts while religion has dogma and subservience.</p>

<p>Also, please don’t take quotes without any reason why the quotes are true else you will be committing an appeal to authority logical fallacy. His status as an intelligent man has no bearing on the validity of his claims unless there’s evidence to show why his claims are true.</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

I agree completely. But the following claim needs to be proven by the person who made it:</p>

<p>“Religion has no basis in reality.”</p>

<p>That is fundamentally saying that it is false. Your elephant example DOES have a basis in reality because it is inherently a description of reality, whether or not it is correct.

</p>

<p>but God is not from reality. Reality consists of observable phenomena. My prior example doesn’t fit this exact scenario since yes, an invisible elephant has elements grounded in reality (there are elephants and there are invisible objects) but god itself has no basis in reality. There is no omnipotent being we know exists for a fact. There is no such thing as omniscience (there is actually much evidence that shows that omniscience can never be achieved within the framework of nature). God as you conceive it would necessarily be supernatural as in separated from nature and there’s no proof that such an entity exists. There’s no proof that there IS anything outside of nature or outside of “reality”. The burden of proof on establishing the existence of the supernatural lies on theists and even more so, the existence of this supposed supernatural entity as a sentient being and a being subscribing to the beliefs of your respective holy book lies in the adherents to specific religion.</p>

<p>No theist and no follower of any religion has shown that such a being exists and even more so, has not shown that such a being adheres to their religion.</p>

<p>I’d gladly become a theist if sufficient evidence is shown that makes the existence of God a high probability but there isn’t any that doesn’t fall to a variety of logical fallacies!</p>

[itsinreach]

<p>@ foolfromhell please understand that no matter how intelligent your word choice may be, your ideas are no less credible</p>

<p>As for the quote, i believe that he is referring to religion in the “faith” sense - as wrong as that may be. Meaning you need to have faith in your 5 human senses to interpret reality correctly. We have no way of seeing the world objectively, if such a perspective even exists, so it is impossible to be absolutely certain that our observation-based conclusions (ie. science) are valid - again, if the notion of an objective reality really exists. We have to have faith in our conclusions to progress. I hope you can understand that we, as humans, can only perceive the world through the human senses, and thus have no true gauge of accuracy (i hope that makes sense).</p>

<p>I myself am a lover of science but I just wanted to add the philosophical viewpoint, instead of the angry rhetoric that some are engaging in.</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

As for the quote, i believe that he is referring to religion in the “faith” sense - as wrong as that may be. Meaning you need to have faith in your 5 human senses to interpret reality correctly. We have no way of seeing the world objectively, if such a perspective even exists, so it is impossible to be absolutely certain that our observation-based conclusions (ie. science) are valid - again, if the notion of an objective reality really exists. We have to have faith in our conclusions to progress. I hope you can understand that we, as humans, can only perceive the world through the human senses, and thus have no true gauge of accuracy (i hope that makes sense).

</p>

<p>I never stated that anything is absolutely true or absolutely untrue. Everything is based on probabilities and my conclusions are derived from the assumption that my senses are real. Of course the world could be different than how we perceive it to be but this is all we have to go on and from what we see, there’s no evidence in favor of a divine being. </p>

<p>Ad hominem attacks are really a stupid way to conduct debate. I write what pops into my head. I don’t make any intentional effort in sounding pretentious with word choice.</p>

<p>Using the very basic assumptions that the world exists as we know it, we can explore from there and from there its determined that there’s no evidence for a God. Arguing that the world isn’t as we perceive it is pointless if the preconditions for this alternate reality include its inability to be discovered. We could all be living in the Matrix but it’s pointless to think we are if the Matrix is by definition undiscoverable by us.</p>

[itsinreach]

<p>^ yes, you’re right about the ad hominem attack…sorry bout that lol. just got lost in the heat of the moment i guess</p>

<p>and yes, i agree it is pointless to ponder an unprovable alternate reality, and thats where the FAITH in our reality/science becomes necessary. are we on the same page now?</p>

<p>ps I met the cinematographer for the Matrix…</p>

[Interestedcollegiate]

<p>

and yes, i agree it is pointless to ponder an unprovable alternate reality, and thats where the FAITH in our reality/science becomes necessary. are we on the same page now?

</p>

<p>But it remains that our senses are tangible elements that we have to trust. God isn’t tangible. He’s a human construct created to explain things that were unexplainable to the scientifically primitive minds of eons past. Faith has its uses. I have faith in my friends to do what I ask them to. I have faith in my ability to succeed. I have faith that my eyes display things that are, yes, subjectively true. All these things, I have faith since I have evidence showing that it’s rational to have such a faith. My friends have not failed me in the past, I haven’t failed in many major endeavor and have good skills. I know I have SOME kind of senses that I can use.</p>

<p>God has no evidence. There’s no point in having faith in a God when there’s nothing to back him up. Doing so is blind and unwavering faith. it’s absolutely foolish to trust a random man on the street to save your life. It’s absolutely foolish to do anything without a modicum of evidence backing up its success. Believing in the supernatural is the same. There’s NO evidence so there’s NO reason to have faith.</p>

<p>If God is by definition indiscoverable by us, even if he exists, its absolutely stupid to believe he does since there’s no evidence to show that he does. The standard of evidence before faith kicks in is not zero.</p>