Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
Seeing this topic, I assumed that the polite request would be "Please ... suck my balls."
I was not disappointed.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Excellent. Thanks for posting.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I'm glad you posted that, as just about every time a theist starts arguing with science, no matter what points they think they're making, I'm always left with the question: how the bloody fuck does this prove anything from any known religion?
"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)
If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?
It's just pure belligerence is all, they don't see science having debunked all their creeds as being anything but antagonism and try to serve it back as though they are right that it is.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Now that it is saved in my bookmarks I can remember to use those statements when I argue with my ex-friend (and his redundant attempts to convert me to become a christadelphian) and ask him to provide said evidence outside of his precious little bible...oh and his complete lack of understanding of evolution, the terms used by scientists (how many times do I have to explain that theory is not guess in scientific circles?!?!?!?!?) But with those I think I have a new approach next time he brings up stupid statements that, i must admit, sometimes leave me dumb founded on as to how a smart man (and he is pretty smart) can be so damned brainwashed and deceived that I have forgotten to breath a few times.
No christian seems to realise that even if everything in evolution was proven completley false, it wouldn't automatically make creation the only true alternative. Could still have been FSM or some yet to be discovered scientific process.
Not that evolution could be proven false at this point
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
I'm curious as to why nobody likes to point out those (fairly newly) discovered underwater city with ziggurats etc near Japan? That place could be from 10,000 BC though they say its at the very least 8,000 BC? I'm sure one of you knows more than I do about it. Older than any of the Egyptian pyramids fyi.
Question: Does creationist mean someone who believes in a 6,000 y/o and 6 day process that created the universe, or simply that they believe God created the universe?
It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.
A YEC(Young Earth Creationist) believes in 6,000y/o and probably 6 days.Debating with them will cause you to loose all remaining hope in humanity. There are others that just believe in the creation bit, possibly over billions of years,with evolution.
I was a YEC btw
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Sorry, the same scientist who discovered them helped debunk them. Hard as it is to imagine, those are not ziggurats. They're just very interesting natural formations.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh really? That is news to me. Too bad too because that would have been great to use, but I suppose its not like there's a lack of info on how old the earth is. Thanks for pointing that out.
It is said the great ones catch teardrops in their hands.
The position that Answers in Genesis is defending is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical position. Arguments for and against philosophical positions are not based on evidence, but on implications and internal consistency.
Think of things this way. Atheism (monist materialism) is a philosophical position. Evolution is a scientific theory under atheism.
You can defend the scientific theory of evolution with scientific arguments, but you don't defend the philosophical position of atheism with scientific arguments except via defending its subordinate theory: evolution. It's a mismatch of proof-types to do otherwise.
Of course someone (probably every atheist here) is going to deny this dichotomy, but that doesn't change the fact that it's real. Science isn't limited by what any individual can -or is willing to- understand.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
This is not accurate. The fact that science works under epistemological naturalism does not necessarily imply that the scientist him/herself is a believer in metaphysical naturalism. Scientific theories are therefore investigations of the natural world, and what they turn out is with respect to the aforementioned epistemological system. It is a non sequitur to assert that because science works with epistemological naturalism, and evolution, being a scientific theory, also works with epistemological naturalism, therefore the scientist him/herself investigating evolution (or any other scientific theory) must be a metaphysical naturalist. From what did you conjure that notion up?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Allow me to elaborate:
My statement is not that every "scientist" who prescribes to the theory of evolution is an epistemological naturalist. That IS a non sequitor. I meant that every philosophical system when asked to factually defend itself will not defend itself as itself, but rather invoke a scientific theory (which is subordinate to the philosophical position.)
What theories are used by which people with which philosophies will vary greatly, but the primary dichotomy I am trying to draw is this:
philosophical positions =/= scientific theories. (I hope we can all agree on this part.)
Ergo it is the fallacy of equivocation to ask a philosophical system to defend itself factually as a scientific theory would.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
That's fine. I was not contesting that point. I was just confused about the statement "evolution is a scientific theory under atheism". Under atheism? Not necessarily.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
On this line Intelligent Design can be legitimately considered a scientific theory. The philosophical beliefs of the user do not change the scientific validity of any particular theory. (unless you can specifically demonstrate how ID violates kellym78's definitions of science (RRS homepage) in some way.)
Ahh. Yes. We all know that those damn theists can't keep their religion out of their scientific studies, so it violates #2. Only atheists can legitimately do science. They're impartial. [/sarcasm]
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
This has nothing to do with my previous post, but since this is the turn we have taken...the definitions you quoted were not those for a scientific theory, they are those of science in general (and even then, ID would not qualify). A scientific theory must comply with certain requisites. ID does not fulfill these requisites. First of all, there is no theory to speak of. A "theory" is a model which is used to explain and predict phenomenon based on a preponderance of facts which are gained either from testing testable predictions via experimentation, observation, or both, like "kinetic theory" or "catalysis theory" or "evolutionary theory". All of these theories have explanatory power, by which I mean they have the ability to both explain and predict phenomenon that occur, and all are drawn from testing the testable predictions that these theories make. A theory must make a precise statement of mechanism. The Geiger-Marsden experiment, for example, was a surprise in that its results delivered a recurring, albeit small probability of high energy electrons which rebounded off a sheet of gold particles. This clearly refuted Thompson's model for the atom, indicating that the atom was not a uniformly distributed sphere of negative and positive charge. In its place was a mechanism by which the phenomenon was explained, that is to say, the atom must have a small, but highly positive center of charge. In the spatially unlikely event that an electron will hit it, it will rebound, and the probability with which an electron would rebound allowed G&M to calculate the percentage of an atom occupied by the nucleus. This was later confirmed by the Mass Spectrometry experiment, which demonstrated that electrons were precisely 1,846 times smaller than protons. This is an example of a theory which made a testable prediction which was demonstrated by an experiment (and then another, different one). This is the basis upon which theory is constructed. Since ID makes no testable predictions, nor does it have a mechanism proposal (necessary criteria for the explanation and predication), it does not qualify as a valid scientific theory. The only thing that gets to qualify as a valid scientific theory is a model which makes explanations and predictions for phenomenon, which are either testable, observable, or both (observable is an indirect criterion and is flexible. But a predication which is indirect is usually classed as a testable phenomenon as opposed to an observation. For example, we measure the time period in which cyanobacteria anaerobically respired before oxygen entered the atmosphere by using iron precipitate sediments in the oceans. This is considered testable phenomenon, as opposed to observable. It dies not matter. Either way, it is valid).
This claim is not under discussion. Furthermore, not all theists are ID proponents. I have no idea why you keep deviating the discussion, but at this point I have no idea what you are talking about.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
When metaphysical positions produce synthetic truths based on the analytic truths of the metaphysics, those truths may be tested in the same way that predictions from a scientific theory may be tested. That is, by their congruence with observed reality, and by their own coherence with the epistemology of the metaphysics.
As "Answers in Genesis" purports to support a physical and literal origin story, there is overlap in that metaphysics, and and naturalism. Although the metaphysics itself cannot be judged by the epistemology of science, the overlap with the natural world can be judged that way.
Now, when presented with naturalistic evidence, such as the light from stars millions of light years away, a 6,000-year-old creation becomes untenable. Of course, the Christian metaphysics allows for answers like, "But God made the light in-transit to simulate a multi-billion-year-old universe," but then the epistemology becomes incoherent, as God could've done anything, and true knowledge is unattainable.
So then the epistemology becomes, "Anything stated in the Bible is true." Which has been proven to be an incorrect statement.
Anyway, all I'm saying is this: any metaphysical position should be held accountable to the universe itself. Any contradiction between a metaphysics and reality should be judged in favor of reality. And so the requests made by the author of the article are perfectly reasonable.
But then again, any epistemological naturalist would say that.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
See now that confuses me. I have been under the impression that AIG and other YEC proponents weren't satisfied for their legends to be taught under the banner of philosophy or humanities in US schools and were arguing for it to be taught as a discipline of science, and that they have themselves a museum and are venturing to create a peer review journal. If they're only defending a philosophical position, why do all those things?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
1. ID is a branch of speculation and study dealing with a body of facts or truths speciously arranged to demonstrate an insufficiency of the operation of general laws in order to augment with a nebulous concept.
end discussion.
That is a ridiculous straw man.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
SirValient:
So, you've stepped up to the plate. Now where the fuck is your evidence that the world was created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago? That's not a 'philosophical' position, by the way - the formation of the Earth isn't an allegory, it's an actual event that occurred in the physical world. So, yes, someone claiming to know how this occurred should also be expected to provide evidence for their claim.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Good stuff. Nice checklist of the nonsense they bring up to confuse the issue.
Reposted to;
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=21390.msg520424#msg520424
http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=2860.msg57178#msg57178
1) ID predicts that there here will be lots of objective evidence of an intelligent designer.
2) ID predicts that all animal structures and systems will be irreducibly complex since they are custom designed.
3) ID predicts that all ancient rock layers will have substantially the same distribution of modern animal forms.
4) ID predicts that there will not be any evidence of common descent.
5) ID predicts that there will not be any fossils that are ancestors of multiple living species.
6) ID predicts that species can not be organized into nested hierarchical classifications
7) ID predicts there will be only a few species that have become extinct.
9) ID predicts that there will not be any junk DNA.
10) ID predicts that developing embryos will look exactly like the baby animals that they are developing into.
11) ID predicts that all designs in nature will be elegant without any inefficiencies;
12) ID predicts that there can be no artificial evolution of domestic animals or plants or fruit flies
13) ID predicts that bacteria can not evolve to become drug resistant, and insects can not evolve to become insecticide resistant and plants can not evolve to become herbicide resistant.
14) ID predicts that there will not be any self-replicating organic molecules.
15) ID predicts that there will not be any vestigial structures.
Of course all the predictions of ID have failed so ID is just a failed hypotheses. Maybe they should study it in schools as a good example of a failed hypotheses of pseudo-science.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Fair enough. I'll accept both (that it does make predictions, none of which occur). But a theory has another component. Mechanism. Theories need to be able to explain how things occur. That's the basis of theory. We knew that adding Mangenese Dioxide would increase the rate of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide long before we knew why. For that we needed catalysis theory, which explains the principle of catalysis in terms of adsorption and rate kinetics. ID makes no proposals of mechanism, only that everything can be subject to the inscrutable will of a creator.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The theory of biological evolution replaced the outmoded theory of ID (creationism) in the Early 20th century. ID was so obviously wrong that many philosophers criticized it, and some philosophers even believed that animals evolved, even before any mechanism for evolution was even known.
The theory of ID is that some being custom designed each species of animal according to a predetermined plan. Each animal having the exact qualities that the plan specified. If your hair falls out its because that was the plan. If you get cancer, than that was the plan. If you have have psoriasis then that was the plan. If old people lose bladder and bowel control and have arthritis and get Alzheimer's and need hip and knee replacements then that is the plan. Every disease was planned, every parasite was planned, every preditor was planned, every birth defect was planned. ID predicts that there are reasons for every aspect of the plan or it wouldn't be intelligent.
Since each animal was custom designed to fit the plan, then there should not be any evidence at all for evolution. Any evidence of evolution or common descent is evidence that proves that ID is wrong.
The first thing that ID has to prove is that there is an intelligent designer; then they have to prove that there was a reasonable plan; then they have to prove that all inherent qualities of each species was custom designed according to the plan i.e. that there is a reason that each biological structure is how it is and not some other possible structure; and there is a reason that each biological process operates as it does and not in some other possible way. They have to present sufficient evidence to prove that all the predictions that their theory logically predicts are true. For example, they have to prove that all biological structures and processes are irreducibly complex because everything that we know was designed is irreducably complex; they have to prove that there are no vestigial structures during fetal development; and they have to prove that there is no junk DNA; they have to prove that the fossils in all rock strata are uniform and essentially the same as would result from a distribution of modern species. If they are going to claim that people and cows and modern dog breeds coexisted with dinosaurs then they are going to have to show mixtures of such fossils in all the rock layers that contain fossils.
The reason that there is no ID research trying to prove these things are true is because ID is so obviously wrong that even the lying fools who claim that its true really don't believe it deep down in their hearts - at least not enough to try to prove that its true.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Apparently you never read anything I said. I just provided an argument that asking a philosophical position to defend itself factually is a fallacy.
Even though I know plenty of evidence that the earth was created in six days, evidence in and of itself is neutral and hence always can have alternative explanations.
Let's put things this way: Ignoring the cosmic background, the evidence for the big bang is primarily supported by galactic redshifts, correct? Well, thanks to relativistic blueshifting (special relativity interferes with light's Doppler shifts) we can't even tell if the redshifts we see are caused by the Doppler effect, or even if they are what numeric value the results are. The fact of the redshifts itself does not take sides.
Facts are facts. Facts can be interpreted, but they themselves are neutral. It's the human element of the argument that's taking sides, and frankly, I'm not into pitting my human nature to interpret things against yours. It is nothing except an exercise in pointlessness.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
That is not evidence that the world was created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago.
You fail.
Care to try again?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I beg to differ. THere happen to be very precise methods for distinguishing Relativistic doppler shifts in wavelength, and gravitational redshift, from Cosmological redshift. Firstly, I shall presume you to be completely familiar with the Hubble derivations. But just in case this is not the case, I shall very quickly present the derivation without the FWLR, then with: Times New Roman;">Hubble’s constant is hotly debated, but based on the present data, the COBE estimates place it around 71km/s/Mpc. Note that we determined this by observing Type 1a supernovae using exactly the simple formula outlined after calculating the redshift:
Also, the recessional velocity with respect to time (ie the time between the intervals measured) can be given by differentiation: dD/dT.
Hubble’s constant, the acceleration of the universe, is given in km/s/Mpc, as is v.
The next principle we must understand is z, z is the change in wavelength as observed due to the recession of galaxies. It is defined as( λemitted x λobserved/λemitted). There are simple equations which link v, z, and H, but they only work for close galaxies. When the galaxies measured are too distant, any model which uses z for estimation of Hubble’s parameter must detail the precise change in z, D, and H due to the fact that the light has taken so long to get to Earth. But for close galaxies, these paramaters will not have changed much, so we can estimate v using v=zc, where c is the speed of light. We will not be doing this. For one, close galaxies blueshift due to gravity, which also, obviously, totally distorts any result we may glean by cosmological redshift. For galaxies which are far away, those which we measure redshift, it is possible to input the results into a more precise formula, which helps distinguish Cosmological and gravitational redshift.
There are multiple ways, as we have seen, to express Hubble’s constant: As functions of velocity, distance, the FLRW metric, and z. As of 2007, all expressive functions of H are in concurrence. It is definitely between 50-90, and precisely where was hotly debated for some time. Now our equipment is very accurate and we have narrowed it down significantly and the best data indicates it is 71.
We need to find q, that is the parameter of acceleration, and in terms of Hubble’s constant, it is:
Q=-H^-2((dH/dt)+H^2)
Now, we have known since 1998 that q is a negative value, and this value must be integrated (not figuratively, as in literally integrated mathematically by means of the ∫ operator), and extrapolate from when the commoving horizon was zero, the moment of the Big Bang.
It is useful to know the 71km/s/Mpc value because it allows us our extrapolation. It allows us to calculate useful values like the Hubble length and the Hubble time. The Hubble lengths is a good value to work with, and is simply the c/Hubble Time, where the Hubble Time is 1/H0. These are crude ways to measure the age of the universe, but are helpful if you want to demonstrate the age of the universe using a calculator and a pen and a data table as opposed to a satellite. If Hubble length is c/H(t), where H(t)=1/H, then H(l)=Htc, which is 300,000/71=approximately 4220 Mpc, since we are working in km/s/Mpc. 4220Mpc is converted into light years by the fact that 1 Megaparsec is 3,262,000 light years, from which we derive: 1.37x10^10 light years or 13.7 billion ly.
Hubble Time is also useful as a rough estimate of the universe's age. The Hubble Time is a useful function of the recessional velocity, where if v=HD, then 1/H=d/v. Since it is a reciprocal, we have to reverse all of the units, and so (converting 71km/s/Mpc to 20km/s/Mly makes it easier), we have to reverse everything, so we end up with 10^6 light years per megalight year, and 9.5x10^12 km per light year, which can be demonstrated like this:
1 Light Second= 300,000km, one light year=3x10^5 x 60 x 60x 24 x 365=9.5x10^12km
The reason we need to add the 10^6 is because the second reciprocal has been changed to km/ly as opposed to km/Mly. This just makes it a lot easier. And since the H constant is in seconds, we need to express the function in seconds. One year contains 3.15x10^7 seconds Now:
1/20x10^6x9.5x10^12x 1/3.15x10^7, which becomes roughly 1.45x10^10 years, or 14.5 billion years. As you can see, this is a crude method, but is good for quick calculation.
Now consider Relativistic Doppler shifts:
The time interval between two events t within the inertial frame is denoted t, and within the frame moving at a velocity v with respect to the observer observing t, then that interval is denoted t'.
The observed interval t' relative to t is:
t'= Lorentz factor x (t)
The Lorentz factor will describe how the increased velocity of the observer v relative to the inertial frame will change the observed interval t' relative to the inertial observer with their observed interval t. The Lorentz factor is (1/r(1-v^2/c^2)
The Doppler effect simply measures the observed change in frequency of a wave from an observer depending on how the source and observer are moving relative to each other. This principle is quite simple. When the observer is moving relative to the source away from it, less wavefronts will pass it over a time period, hence it will observe a lower frequency hence a higher wavelength, and the opposite if it is moving relative to and towards the source, since more wavefronts will be passing it per second since it is moving towards the source of the wavefronts. The same holds true for if the source moves towards or away from the observer.
Bearing this in mind:
T(o)={(t/L) L(1-v/c)fe}^-1
The ratio between the frequencies emitted and observed, given as f0/fe, will change with time dilation. When a wavefront arrives at the observed, the next wavefront will be c/fe (fe being emmited frequency). For Cosmological redshift, however, the bodies are so far away, this effect will be negligible. You can check yourself. Just find any values from experimental results for Cosmological redshift, slip those values into the equation and see what you come out with. The same will hold if we distinguish gravitational and cosmological redshift:
This is obvious if we consider attempting to input results from Cosmological redshift into the equations for Gravitational redshift.
Given that
z=(GM)/c^2r
Consider Newton's Inverse square law:
F=(Gm1m2)/r^2
Then, input that into a body which is accelerating away from us, but at an extremely long distance. :
F=G(8x10^40)(8x10^40)/infinity
against any other massive body. Since we can only detect Cosmological redshift for galaxies, it will have a similar order of magnitude for mass. Although, of course, r won't really be infinity, but the value will be large enough as to make Gm1m2/r^2 to be negligible, hence z will be negligible.
To sum all that up in the simplest possible manner, for close objects (as in very close objects) there will be negligible Cosmological redshift, and for close galaxies, there will be blueshifting due to Universal gravitation. For very far away objects, Relativistic shifts will be neglible compared to Cosmological shifts, and there will be negligible gravitational shift due to the ISL. It is very easy to distinguish between the three, and which is emitting which. The redshifts observed by Cosmological redshift will be because of the expansion of the universe itself, hence the USF equations (Universe Scale Factor). This is distinct from redshift produced by the motion of bodies in a gravity will with respect to the observing body (refer back to Netwon's ISL), or . We call this the Finger of God effect. The systems we are measuring, however, are not gravitationally bound with respect to us. There will be no Doppler shifting from galaxies which in the field equations are considered to be an infinite distance away from us. The shift is caused only by their recession. The shift caused by their recession annihlates respective Doppler shifts, the body is too far away for those to be of any importance. The opposite holds true for things which are very close, which gives the FOG effect.
Edit: Some clarification with respect to the Scale Factor equations.
for cosmological redshift, the formula given is:
1+z= (anow/athen).
a is the universe scale factor. The physical distance between commoving objects is given by L=λa(t), which is rearranged to give a(t)= L/λ
This can be expressed via Hubble’s Law (distance proportional to redshift) using this formula:
H=a2(t)/a1(t), where t is the time derivative of the equation
If the wavelength of light which we receive from a star is twice its original wavelength, that means that the universe in terms of space-time has doubled in size since that photon left the body which emitted it. This is because cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space-time itself, which stretches the wavelength of light being emitted over long distances.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I will assume that you are honest and that your impenetrable wall of figures (if memory serves, on a subject outside of your stated specialty field of genetics) proves the point, and concede that my specific example of a "fact" being neutral was factually inaccurate.
But the overall point -that facts themselves are neutral- is still true.
LOL. When pigs fly. (Wait...birds are supposed to be flying lizards....)
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
I can't get the math formatting to work in the forum. If I could, it would be clearer. And yes, Cosmology is outside my field of speciality, but it is important to have some versing in fields which are outside your respective field, even in something with absolutely no relevance to that field, like Cosmology with respect to genetics.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that facts are neutral but I'm assuming that you're saying that the facts do not point to a universe older than around 600 years or so. If that's the case, then you obviously didn't read deludedgod's post. Now, do please show any evidence that the age of the universe is 600 years old.
Keep in mind that evidence that the universe is not as old science believes it to be is NOT evidence that the universe is 6000 years old.
They're flying reptiles, not lizards. Don't go all "Croc-a-duck" on us, now.
No one believes that the universe is 600 years old except the people that cling to the position that they were created a second ago complete with memories. 600 years is well within recorded history.
What I meant, however, is not that "facts do not support a 6000 year old earth." I think there are plenty that do. What I was saying is that it is futile for me to bring up factual statements to a metaphysical disagreement. Metaphysical positions trump factual claims, so the facts will be interpreted away regardless.
...and IF deludedgod ever posted something to the contrary (the opposite of what I recall) then he's dead wrong.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Really? So the whole field of geology is what, a conspiracy to keep the man down?
WhatwhatWHAT?? Metaphysical positions trump factual claims? Are we talking "facts" when we say "factual claims"? Like if I said, "gravitation causes inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other", and you came up with a metaphysical argument against that, then we could just ignore the fact of gravity?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I really hope that you are being dense on purpose. Spelling everything out is starting to be annoying, and these arguments are the simple ones.
Everyone has metaphysical positions (and I'm including the assertion some atheists make "there is no metaphysics" as a metaphysical position here.) With me so far?
Every metaphysical position also makes statements about the nature of reality. This will inevitably contradict some facts. Psychology dictates that the person will follow their metaphysical position and ignore, rationalize, or otherwise dispose of the contradicting fact. This is what I meant by "metaphysical positions trump factual claims."
EDIT: I have re-read my post. In context, it could not by any stretch of the imagination be made to say what you made it say.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
It's just that you're so clever.
Hold on. Let me get my Jello. They only let me have soft plastic spoons. Okay, go.
So ... psychology (a science) dictates that people will [engage in cognitive dissonance]. That's what you meant by "metaphysical positions trump factual claims." Okay.
Here, you're commenting on the process of delusion. If the metaphysical position doesn't coincide with reality, then you have a delusion. If only parts of your metaphysical position don't coincide with reality, those parts are deluded. They're "faith", a belief lacking evidence.
So, let's see if we have a good epistemology for reality. Hmm ... which one should I pick? Maybe the one that's more successful than any other by a huge margin: science. Hey, good idea, Will. Thanks, Will.
The best thing about scientific thinking is that when you don't know something, you can just say, "I don't know" rather than engaging in delusion and cognitive dissonance.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Unfortunately, in this case you can't just say "I don't know" to avoid engaging in cognitive dissonance. We are talking about philosophical systems, not scientific theories. The two act fundamentally different when subjected to external strain: scientific theories collapse, but philosophical systems just deny the strain even exists in the first place. There's your mind-over matter part.
I'm not dead sure how to put that in jello form, but as that I'm pretty sure that you actually understand me and are just trying to goad me (and almost succeeding....) that won't really matter.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
I didn't.
This is (sometimes) true (although a person's metaphysical position is not set in stone, people can change their metaphysical positions). But it is completely pointless to use it in an argument about what is fact, and if it used in an argument where two sides are attempting to determine the truth value of a proposition (whether or not it is fact), then it is a Bulverism fallacy (excellent word. One good thing Lewis did. We should really use the word more often). The statement could apply to anyone, you, me, etc. etc. As such, it is unhelpful in an argument with respect to determining who is correct. The motive of one's interlocutors is not relevant to the truth value of an argument. I'm not suggesting that is what you suggested, I'm just pointing out its a useless issue to bring up.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
Every metaphysical position also makes statements about the nature of reality. This will inevitably contradict some facts. Psychology dictates that the person will follow their metaphysical position and ignore, rationalize, or otherwise dispose of the contradicting fact. This is what I meant by "metaphysical positions trump factual claims."
Someone ignoring the facts because of their metaphysical position does not mean that the facts are trumped, except in the persons own deluded head. It has no bearings on the facts and the real world.
"I don't know" especially combined with "but there are people trying to find out" is always a valid standpoint. It's better than making up some crap and saying "it must be true because I believe in it".
What is this "external strain"? Scientific theories only collapse when there is factual evidence that they are totally wrong, usually they take into acount the new data and evolve into a slightly better theory.
Denying the "strain" is just more self delusion. Mind over matter only works in a psychological sense.
Ignoring facts because they don't fit your beliefs does not prove that the world is only 6000 years old.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
We sure are.
My point exactly.
Of course I'm goading you. When prodded for evidence of a 6,000 year-old earth, you turn it into a metaphysical question, and ask me if I'm "with you so far." It's not a metaphysical question. It's a question of probability and a reasonable explanation. How likely is it that the earth is 6,000 years old? Extremely unlikely. How likely is it that I'm going to play into such a weak attempt at changing the subject? Roughly the same odds.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Obviously I mistyped that and meant 6,000. At any rate, I wasn't saying that deludedgod said something to the opposite of your metaphysical... whatever.
At any rate, when we're asking if there's proof that the Earth is around 6,000 years old, we're not asking a metaphysical question. We're asking a very real, physical question of demonstrable, testable, and independently verifiable evidence.
Terrific.
*Stamps 'F' on thesis*
Feel free to retract the argument that you just admitted you can't support and apologize for wasting everyone's time.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Polite request to creationists
? Okay, FUCK YOU , instead of KILL YOU ......
Atheism Books.