How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Oh, and one last demostration your utter hypocrisy... you wrote "Also, I found this image yesterday when a crazy person was trying to use it against me."

    A personal attack against another poster calling him crazy? Shame on you, Sabby. Shame. On. You.

  • Etude
    Etude

    sabastious:

    " I do not fail to understand this " that your senses can fool you.

    You're saying that somehow you have a way to validate your observations, in spite of the limitations of your (all our) senses. You say you do this because of experience (doing it for so long) and because you see it in others. But this is where you close yourself to ideas and arguments that can affect that perception. You're looking from the inside out at people and determining, using your own internal compass, that they are biased or they are wrong. They may be wrong and biased, but in order to make that determination, you have to explore their ideas (not yours) and then have supporting independent information for why they are wrong (not just your own set of data).

    What I had detected in your arguments was a refusal to recognize the logic of what can and cannot be successfully argued. For example, you said: " I do not think that just because creationism cannot be disproved that it's true. I have said, I think serveral times now, that because it cannot be disproved it's not an illogical intellectual pursuit." In the first place, the first sentence confuses me because of the double negative condition ("I do not think that it cannot be disproved"), but I get you. I mentioned this before but let me do it again. From Terry's post:

    You said: " what if we COULD know, but are being repelled by forces we don't know exist? " Really? Please think about that. Give it your best self-argument. In high school, we'd argue whether a rock was 'alive' or 'aware' -- By the fact that we cannot detect that a rock 'thinks' doesn't mean it doesn't think. So therefore, not being able to prove it doesn't think does not mean it doesn't think and means it could think and be alive."

    I had hoped you understood the fallacy of that argument. What you're asserting to is that because we can't disprove something it means your point that it exists (because it's possible) is just as valid. What you fail to conclude correctly is the opposite: that not being able to prove the positive is just as valid and therefore the thing doesn't exists. What it means is that when it comes to conclusions, we don't have to have a binary state where it either is or it isn't. In logic, it's OK to conclude that we can't make a conclusion either way because either opposite conclusions are possible or because neither conclusion is possible.

    So when you fail to understand that point, you are isolating yourself to your observations and rejecting anything else that would adjust your view.

    " I established motivation for the search for God "

    When I said that you're guilty of the same thing you accuse "classic" scientists by having a preconceived aim (motivation) in your exploration, you replied: "I established motivation for the search for God. If there are facts that disprove that a Creator is possible then there IS NO MOTIVATION ". What I specifically referred to was your claim that some scientists set out with an unproven belief and stop searching as soon as some results match their expectation.

    Your reply to the "motivation" aspect doesn't make any sense at all. You set out on an intellectual exploration with a premise: "There is an intelligent creator" or "There is NO intelligent creator". The "facts" that either prove or disprove (according to you) directly apply to the notion of the premise you establish. How does that make motivation go away, prior to the examination of the facts? I think you're very motivated and have an intense need to justify your belief. More power to you. But, I think that understanding how someone else can have a completely different understanding from their own senses would go a long way towards examining your own perceptions.

    " Why would I rein in my own valid research? "

    I didn't mean to say you should stop seeking. What followed my suggestion to rein in your ideas was not intended for you to end pursuit your passion. What I meant is that if you're going to expose those ideas to others, it must be on an egalitarian plateau. You have to play by the same rules. Otherwise, you are free to live and think within your own realm. What I'm saying is that in the end, failing consider a prevailing set of ideas and reasoning besides what you have already determined is not very productive or conducive to new understanding.

    As you can see, even though the discussion has given many of us an opportunity to exercise our brains, the experience was not very satisfying and even wearisome and contentious for many. That's why I recommended that what would help is to settle on a specific point and hammer it out. When making a statement of fact, always show a source or an example. Steer the conversation to stay on a specific point before going to the next. Otherwise, you're not going to get affirmation regarding what you think. That's OK. But then, you'll find that people are less and less willing to engage you. Isn't that what you're here for?

  • rather be in hades
    rather be in hades

    This is not the case, because it's not disproved. The burden of proof is on the people who say it's disproved.

    that's crazy.

    ever since man stopped dragging his knuckles and walking upright, we've sought to understand the world around us. these explanations always involved some sort of mystical/spiritistic/creator and each one of those has been systematically trashed by the scientific method.

    the garden of eden? talking snakes my ass.

    so far, everything we've investigated and used hard data to understand has knocked off all these silly myths.

    you have no factual basis for claiming there is a creator other than, "well i have no proof that there isn't". the onus is on you to prove that there is. because otherwise, this is yet another attempt to throw in a creator where there's no reason to think that there is one other than some silly and twisted "logic".

    so let's try using that logic on your concept of "god"

    who created the creator? oh, what, he just was there from time indefinite? considering that this is a universe of birth and death, where's the logic in that?

    where did the creator get the material to make the universe? oh, what, he had magic? he can just make things out of nothingness? where's the logic in that?

    once again, i wonder if you're worried that the risks of not believing and being wrong are too great.

  • Reality vs Delusion
    Reality vs Delusion

    Hey, Sab called me crazy... okay, thats fair, I called him a JW so I had it coming.

    And perhaps I am crazy for posting anything on this thread, even if it was just out of boredom and irritation at the bizarreness of it all.

    “Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality. Give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know; but treat as potential killers those specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a license, that they ‘just feel it’-or those who reject an irrefutable argument by saying: ‘It’s only logic,’ which means: ‘It’s only reality.’ The only realm opposed to reality is the realm and premise of death." - John Galt, From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    You're saying that somehow you have a way to validate your observations, in spite of the limitations of your (all our) senses.

    I have methods to personally validate my own observations. I don't expect anyone else to validate them merely using their senses. Also, you are operating on the false assumption that my senses are the same as yours. They actually are not. I am different than you. Many people will say I am claiming "specialness" and they would be correct, however everyone is special in their own way so it all equalizes. Some people can take a look inside a mechanical contraception and understand it enough just by logic and sight to take it apart and put it back together. Some people can jump really high and that puts them in the category of high jumpers. Someone who is not a high jumper might say that the high jumper is special, but what would that mean? Does that mean that people who can't high jump are not special? No, that's a false assumption. There are many aptitudes of the human mind and they have NOT all been perfectly mapped out. I very well could be operating with a sense that you not unaware of the existence of. I don't have to get your validation for my ideas, only if I want them published in a scientific journal. I don't use that criteria for belief and I do not shy away from preaching strongly held beliefs. This is my right as a citizen in the western world.

    You say you do this because of experience (doing it for so long) and because you see it in others. But this is where you close yourself to ideas and arguments that can affect that perception. You're looking from the inside out at people and determining, using your own internal compass, that they are biased or they are wrong. They may be wrong and biased, but in order to make that determination, you have to explore their ideas (not yours) and then have supporting independent information for why they are wrong (not just your own set of data).

    I do explore other people's ideas or else I couldn't rightly call myself a scientist. However there is criteria of who's opinion I will assign weight and who's I will personally discredit. For instance an employer might throw away an application that is written in pencil. That's a good analogy for the methods I use. However, I am open to all ideas that meet my criteria. You will want to know about this criteria and you are free to ask questions about it, I will answer. However if you simply say that because I have not yet stated my criteria that I cannot use the results I have obtained from using them, then I will discount what you have to say. That would mean that you are not interested in hearing what I have to say unless you can somehow assign credibility to it. Why not just listen? What's the problem? This is fine really, but you cannot expect just anyone to agree with your criteria for crediability just as I cannot expect you to agree with mine. That doesn't however means we have no ability to communicate and that's where many rationalists make a mistake. They throw away the wrong applications simply because some people who didn't have a pen do a better job than people who do.

    What you're asserting to is that because we can't disprove something it means your point that it exists (because it's possible) is just as valid.

    No, what I am asserting is that belief is warranted because of the inability to disprove the claim: an intelligent being created the universe. The "anything is possible" argument is actually pretty solid given known data. A common misconception about negatives is that they cannot be proven. This is not true, negatives are extremely difficult to proove beyond reasonable doubt. This is because our brains are so complex as to be capable of creating unlimited circumstances of which something can occur. Not all these circumstances are necessarily possible, but that doesn't mean they can't be used for the sake of argument.

    What you fail to conclude correctly is the opposite: that not being able to prove the positive is just as valid and therefore the thing doesn't exists.

    But you can prove the positive, you just can't prove the negative, that's my point. You can positively say that there was an intelligent creator present during the Big Bang because of US who transcended through time. We didn't start out with morals, we transcended through time to get them. As time moves forward we will learn more and more about logic, ethics and morals. Right now our understanding of them is not complete, we need more time to grow. However now that we know the universe was created in a Big Bang we have actual evidence of a Creator. Because something could have CHOSEN that expansion to happen. That's why rationalists are scrambling to explain how Something came from Nothing even though there may be entire fields of study that have yet to be unconvered. They are putting the cart before the horse. Those hidden fields of study could easily have rudimentary schemas developed by ancient cultures. Does life have to discover scientific phenomenon in the exact same order as we did every time? Or can it be different? I would say that it could be different and therefore past life could have found other sciences that we don't even know exist yet.

    What it means is that when it comes to conclusions, we don't have to have a binary state where it either is or it isn't. In logic, it's OK to conclude that we can't make a conclusion either way because either opposite conclusions are possible or because neither conclusion is possible.

    Yes but there is enough reason to start from both binary states. We have a theory for "created" and we also have a theory for "not created" and the latter is much younger than the former. It's not either or and never has been. Whacky religionists have fought dirty for too long and it gives people like me a bad name.

    So when you fail to understand that point, you are isolating yourself to your observations and rejecting anything else that would adjust your view.

    All I reject is disrespect towards me and my ideas. If someone does that then they will see me digg my heels in the dirt and steady my hand close to the gun at my side. Anyone who disrespects another should expect nothing less.

    Your reply to the "motivation" aspect doesn't make any sense at all. You set out on an intellectual exploration with a premise: "There is an intelligent creator" or "There is NO intelligent creator". The "facts" that either prove or disprove (according to you) directly apply to the notion of the premise you establish. How does that make motivation go away, prior to the examination of the facts? I think you're very motivated and have an intense need to justify your belief. More power to you. But, I think that understanding how someone else can have a completely different understanding from their own senses would go a long way towards examining your own perceptions.

    It's like when at a crime scene, you have to establish a motive or else you don't have a case. The premise is established which then provides motivation to proceed. Just like how a criminal creates the crime first in their head and then carries it out. Without motive it's hard to understand the actions of humans. We don't just do things for no reason.

    I didn't mean to say you should stop seeking. What followed my suggestion to rein in your ideas was not intended for you to end pursuit your passion. What I meant is that if you're going to expose those ideas to others, it must be on an egalitarian plateau. You have to play by the same rules. Otherwise, you are free to live and think within your own realm. What I'm saying is that in the end, failing consider a prevailing set of ideas and reasoning besides what you have already determined is not very productive or conducive to new understanding.

    I do play by the same rules, however one of the rules is that you get to make up your own rules. And if people break those rules that you set up at the beginning of the discussion then it's not a discussion anymore. In the OP I specified my definition I was working with, but many took objection. I don't care about objection, that's the definition I am working with. Creationism is a complex subject, but because the Big Bang is empirically demonstrable, that's where it should awlays logically start, but there are two ways to go: created and uncreated. Using someone else's ideas for creationism against mine from unbelievers is not condusive to constuctive discussion. My idea starts with the idea that there was an intelligence that set the universe into motion. That entity probably knew about all the suffering that was going to come from that choice, but that entity made the choice anyway, because that Entity knows best. I study that Force that moves throughout time and influences it and I call that Force God creator of all things.

    -Sab

  • rather be in hades
    rather be in hades
    I have methods to personally validate my own observations. I don't expect anyone else to validate them merely using their senses. Also, you are operating on the false assumption that my senses are the same as yours. They actually are not. I am different than you. Many people will say I am claiming "specialness" and they would be correct, however everyone is special in their own way so it all equalizes. Some people can take a look inside a mechanical contraception and understand it enough just by logic and sight to take it apart and put it back together. Some people can jump really high and that puts them in the category of high jumpers. Someone who is not a high jumper might say that the high jumper is special, but what would that mean? Does that mean that people who can't high jump are not special? No, that's a false assumption. There are many aptitudes of the human mind and they have NOT all been perfectly mapped out. I very well could be operating with a sense that you not unaware of the existence of. I don't have to get your validation for my ideas, only if I want them published in a scientific journal. I don't use that criteria for belief and I do not shy away from preaching strongly held beliefs. This is my right as a citizen in the western world.

    that's rather selfish of you to hold back proof of god for the world to see. i think there's about 7 billion and change that would really appreciate this proof. it'd change a lot of perspective and stop some of the awful things going on around the world in the name of god

    I do play by the same rules, however one of the rules is that you get to make up your own rules.

    i wonder what einstein would say about that?

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Hey, Sab called me crazy... okay, thats fair, I called him a JW so I had it coming.

    I didn't mean you were insane, it was crazy behavior to come onto a thread of someone you don't know hurling insults. You sound more collected now, not crazy at all.

    -Sab

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    that's rather selfish of you to hold back proof of god for the world to see. i think there's about 7 billion and change that would really appreciate this proof. it'd change a lot of perspective and stop some of the awful things going on around the world in the name of god

    Do you know to express my thoughts for me? To be selfish would to post nothing and I post something even at the cost of family drama. Right now I am running my ideas by great minds and they are tearing them up just as I want. The end product should be simple and coherent or else you can't call it a result. Results solve problems.

    When the solution is simple God is answering. -Albert Einstein

    -Sab

  • braincleaned
    braincleaned

    Post 10328 of 10434
    Since 2/3/2010

    Please, someone, disprove this:

    The universe was created by an intelligent being.
    Nobody is saying this is not possible, so the burden of proof is on you that claims this as a fact.
  • sabastious
    sabastious

    Braincleaned, we already have proof that there was a creator and that's us. So the biggest proof would be yourself, would it not? Are you not the culmination of a stream of time from the moment of the Big Bang forward? It's pretty remarkable that you are able to understand what happened.

    -Sab

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit