Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Alcatraz

The God Theory.

Recommended Posts

Guest Alcatraz

We often hear from Creationists that evolution is unlikely as it has never been viewed and as such there is no imperical evidence of evolution being 'real'.

 

I would like to turn this argument on its head if I may.

 

What imperical, physical evidence exists to prove the existence of God (or any other diety for that matter)?

 

Surely if evidence of the imperical is required as the base for one, then that same criteria should be across the proverbial board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, what I find is that when someone does not want to find something (God), they generally will not. And will make extra efforts not to, nor accept anything anyone says unless they can experience themselves on the same level.

 

The thing about evolution is, is that all the evidence is supposed to convince people that it did happen. The empirical evidence.

 

Empirical evidence: evidence acquired through direct observation, preferably under controlled circumstances, with results reported in well-defined units of measure.

 

Evolution is not full of empirical evidence. 90% is interpreted evidence from fossils. Interpreted processes gathered from how they "think" the fossils got that way and ended up there.

 

That is not evidence acquired through "direct observation". So the claim that evolution is full of empirical evidence is just another attempt to imply a absolute where a absolute will not work. Because a unfalsifiable idea is no longer a theory.

 

So if one exalts evolution to compete with God, and all evolutionists agree with this exaltation. Then through this action evolution becomes a religion by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empirical evidence: evidence acquired through direct observation, preferably under controlled circumstances, with results reported in well-defined units of measure.

 

Evolution is not full of empirical evidence. 90% is interpreted evidence from fossils. Interpreted processes gathered from how they "think" the fossils got that way and ended up there.

 

That is not evidence acquired through "direct observation". So the claim that evolution is full of empirical evidence is just another attempt to imply a absolute where a absolute will not work. Because a unfalsifiable idea is no longer a theory.

40341[/snapback]

I hate to stereotype, but it does seem to be a problem that a lot of creationists have. They don't seem to realise that empirical evidence can include things like studying fossils or mathematical calculations, even in the absence of seeing the process. I think the problem is that "direct observation" implies one must see the process or it is unscientific. This simply isn't true.

 

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

 

(My bold)

 

Wikipedia - Empirical

 

No, we can't go back and see the process that formed fossils. We can however study what has been left behind and reverse engineer that process. This is scientific.

 

So if one exalts evolution to compete with God, and all evolutionists agree with this exaltation. Then through this action evolution becomes a religion by default.

40341[/snapback]

Because evolution could potentially eliminate the need for a deity and a lot of people agree with it, that makes this scientific endeavor religious?

 

In the past people used to use incantations and funny dances to heal the sick or place curses upon others (witchcraft). After a while they figured out it did nothing and started using herbal remedies, which eventually became modern medicine.

 

By your logic modern medicine is a form of witchcraft, as it replaced the former structure and a lot of people believe it works.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, what I find is that when someone does not want to find something (God), they generally will not. And will make extra efforts not to, nor accept anything anyone says unless they can experience themselves on the same level.

40341[/snapback]

And conversely, when they DO want to find something (evolution) they generally WILL. And will make the extra effort to accept anything (a pigs tooth, Lucy etc...) anyone says (evolutionists) to believe it. And all the while deny their dogmatic faith in said pseudo-evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We often hear from Creationists that evolution is unlikely as it has never been viewed and as such there is no imperical evidence of evolution being 'real'.

 

I would like to turn this argument on its head if I may.

 

What imperical, physical evidence exists to prove the existence of God (or any other diety for that matter)?

 

Surely if evidence of the imperical is required as the base for one, then that same criteria should be across the proverbial board.

40339[/snapback]

The point being missed here is the fact that Theists already admit the "faith" factor involved in our belief system. The non-theist deludes themselves into thinking that they have none. And the pseudo-theist spend their time watering down their theism to fit the so-called non-theism of the non-theist.

 

Having said that, there is plenty of empirical evidences (as well as logical evidences) for God. The so-called non-theist just doesn't like these evidences (and/or simply won't accept the truths therein).

 

You, in fact, haven't stood anything on it's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

Ron,

 

The evidence of Evolution is no more or less 'Pseudo-Evidence' than the evidence presented for Creationism of belief in an all powerful God or deity.

 

Now bearing in mind that I am Agnostic, not Athiest, I have to say that there is a 'sauce for the goose' argument when it comes to the God Theory.

 

I see no physical evidence for the existance of a God or Creationism, anymore than Creationsists can see evidence for Evolution.

 

As I said in my opening post, for Creationists to ask for proof positive of Evolution, they cannot then be upset if asked for proof positive of Creation ior God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

 

The evidence of Evolution is no more or less 'Pseudo-Evidence' than the evidence presented for Creationism of belief in an all powerful God or deity.

 

Now bearing in mind that I am Agnostic, not Athiest, I have to say that there is a 'sauce for the goose' argument when it comes to the God Theory.

 

I see no physical evidence for the existance of a God or Creationism, anymore than Creationsists can see evidence for Evolution.

 

As I said in my opening post, for Creationists to ask for proof positive of Evolution, they cannot then be upset if asked for proof positive of Creation ior God.

40477[/snapback]

And again, you are missing my original point: "The point being missed here is the fact that Theists already admit the "faith" factor involved in our belief system. The non-theist deludes themselves into thinking that they have none. And the pseudo-theist spend their time watering down their theism to fit the so-called non-theism of the non-theist"

 

As an Agnostic, you are just as susceptible to your faith as the Theist, atheist and liberal pseudo-theist. You are taking "on faith" that God "may not" be. And just saying "there is no evidence" doesn't relinquish the fact that you need to refute all the lines of evidence FOR God, in order to make the statement. Otherwise your statement is nothing more than baseless words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alcatraz

And again, you are missing my original point: "The point being missed here is the fact that Theists already admit the "faith" factor involved in our belief system. The non-theist deludes themselves into thinking that they have none. And the pseudo-theist spend their time watering down their theism to fit the so-called non-theism of the non-theist"

 

As an Agnostic, you are just as susceptible to your faith as the Theist, atheist and liberal pseudo-theist. You are taking "on faith" that God "may not" be. And just saying "there is no evidence" doesn't relinquish the fact that you need to refute all the lines of evidence FOR God, in order to make the statement. Otherwise  your statement is nothing more than baseless words.

40486[/snapback]

Ron,

 

I like you mate, so please don't take this the wrong way, but that is the most square peg into a round hole argument I have read or heard.

 

The point of this thread was to show that the evidence that Creationists demand from Evolutionists is moot as Creationists can show no physical evidence of their (creation) beliefs, once again my cliche for the day is 'Sauce for the goose'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, there is plenty of empirical evidences (as well as logical evidences) for God.

40474[/snapback]

...

...

 

Anyone care to elaborate on this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

...

 

Anyone care to elaborate on this point?

40491[/snapback]

I'd like to hear your elaboration of what you believe a creationist would say, without a sarcastic spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

 

I like you mate, so please don't take this the wrong way, but that is the most square peg into a round hole argument I have read or heard.

 

The point of this thread was to show that the evidence that Creationists demand from Evolutionists is moot as Creationists can show no physical evidence of their (creation) beliefs, once again my cliche for the day is 'Sauce for the goose'.

40489[/snapback]

And I like you as well 'Traz, but ignoring all the evidence for God by a wave of the hand and saying "Creationists can show no physical evidence of their (creation) beliefs" doesn't detract from, or refute my argument one iota.

 

You see, by ignoring all that physical evidence, you are leaning on your agnostic faith to do so. No square peg, round hole at all.And you still need to refute all the lines of evidence FOR God, in order to make any statements against Him. Otherwise your statement is nothing more (again) than baseless words.

 

And, this forum is repeat with those evidences FOR God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear your elaboration of what you believe a creationist would say, without a sarcastic spin.

40629[/snapback]

Hmm, without going into all the detail...there's meant to be evidences for the flood, evidences for a young earth and a short geological timeline and miracles.

As well as that there's a great deal of information that confirms that in all likelihood Jesus did walk the earth ~2000 years ago.

 

Your turn :)

 

EDIT: I gotta say, after 12 posts I think it's sad the atheist is the only one who's even tried to answer the OP. Ike's tried to say evolution isn't based on empirical evidence and Ron's insinuated that empirical evidence exists for God but hasn't put a single thing forward.

 

Honest question, and I ask this with the utmost respect. When no one appears to have any interest in answering what I consider to be a simple, foundational question, do you really wonder why so many people see creationists as crackpots?

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

 

I like you mate, so please don't take this the wrong way, but that is the most square peg into a round hole argument I have read or heard.

 

The point of this thread was to show that the evidence that Creationists demand from Evolutionists is moot as Creationists can show no physical evidence of their (creation) beliefs, once again my cliche for the day is 'Sauce for the goose'.

40489[/snapback]

It's not clear what you are wanting. Do you want evidence for the God Theory or evidence for Creation Science (Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity... etc)?

 

I think Ron has answered your question (twice), "Theists already admit the "faith" factor [is] involved".

 

If you have anymore questions you need to first accept that faith is part of creationist scientific method before proceeding with further queries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear your elaboration of what you believe a creationist would say, without a sarcastic spin.

40629[/snapback]

:rolleyes:

 

Adam, the thing that gets me is that the answers are all over this forum (not liking those answers is not a serious refutation of those answers).

 

Now comes the subterfuge of some who would do the "old soft shoe" around those answers and evidences in a weak attempt to deny those evidences. Can this be considered "comfort" denials (like comfort food) to be indulged in for the sake of self-pacification(i.e. not liking the answers and evidences, but not having real refutations for those answers and evidences)?

 

And (as I have mentioned before) the whole while, denying their faith in atheism/skepticism/agnosticism/materialism (etc...) in these baseless attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear your elaboration of what you believe a creationist would say, without a sarcastic spin.

40629[/snapback]

I think a creationist would say that anything could be evidence for their particular god as they believe that their god created everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to stereotype, but it does seem to be a problem that a lot of creationists have. They don't seem to realise that empirical evidence can include things like studying fossils or mathematical calculations, even in the absence of seeing the process. I think the problem is that "direct observation" implies one must see the process or it is unscientific. This simply isn't true.

Then God becomes as provable as evolution. Why? What you just applied to evolution were also applied to God. Then God would be just a scientific. But because evolution requires special treatment as to look true, while that same treatment is denied for everything else. Evolution will always "look" more provable even though it is not.

 

No, we can't go back and see the process that formed fossils. We can however study what has been left behind and reverse engineer that process. This is scientific.

If the bases on which time hinges on is true. There are other possibilities that get ignored everyday because they do not support the major accepted view.

 

Because evolution could potentially eliminate the need for a deity and a lot of people agree with it, that makes this scientific endeavor religious?

Saying that it is okay for a "scientific" theory to eliminate a religion, when it is not even supposed to be related. Is like putting baseball players on a football field to play a game they cannot because the playing feild is not set up for it.

 

Science is supposed to be a scientific playing field, right? What are they doing stepping on a religious playing field trying to play a religious game when science is not supposed to be equpped to do so? And how do they paly this game so well anyway?

 

1) Evolution was designed by Darwin to conflict with religion on every level.

2) Evolution's playing field is almost exactly the same as religion, or science has a lot of explaining to do on how two things not related can even compete.

 

Here is what I want you to imagine for a minute so that you see what creationists see about evolution. Imagine a playing field where the rules of the game are set out from the word of God. You have preachers and the congregation. And without going into great detail, just imagine a church.

 

Now let's add lab coats, theories, etc... Basically everything that any lab would have. Now what does not belong on this playing field? What should not be able to compete on the level that it does on this playing feild? Evolution. So in order for it to be able to compete, there has to be a relationship . Somewhere, some how, something is the same. Something that is the foundation for religion that is also a major foundation for evolution.

 

In the past people used to use incantations and funny dances to heal the sick or place curses upon others (witchcraft). After a while they figured out it did nothing and started using herbal remedies, which eventually became modern medicine.

 

By your logic modern medicine is a form of witchcraft, as it replaced the former structure and a lot of people believe it works.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40378[/snapback]

It still goes on Arch.

 

Also, medicines that science works with are usually compounds from herbs altered to an extent to do specific tasks. Does that make science witchcraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a creationist would say that anything could be evidence for their particular god as they believe that their god created everything.

40699[/snapback]

I see evolutionists attempting to say anything can be evidence for evolution. Even going as far as to deny ALL the evidence for design and pretending our technological advances are proof for evolution while the only thing technology proves is the design in that technology.

 

Evolutionists provide lovely "artists renderings" from a few bones as proof of evolution. Now that's faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What imperical, physical evidence exists to prove the existence of God (or any other diety for that matter)?

 

If the Bible is correct, then so God. If God is real, He authored the Bible, through human hands. IF, in the Bible, God made ANY predictions of the future, they could be found true or false. That seems varifiable. So, instead of me telling you that this or that was prophesied and came true. You find me a prophecy that is not fulfilled within the time frame given. Should be easy right? There were many, surely at least one has not occued in a timely fashion.

 

God, by His nature (creator of all therefore existing beyond or outside all) cannot be studied, verified from within all. his existence is not falsifiable. But his actions (prophecies) are.

 

I could site the many historical accuracies that the Bible includes, I believe that was already mentioned. But you could make the claim that tehy were added after the fact. Nope, you must be the originator of the false charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then God becomes as provable as evolution. Why? What you just applied to evolution were also applied to God. Then God would be just a scientific. But because evolution requires special treatment as to look true, while that same treatment is denied for everything else. Evolution will always "look" more provable even though it is not.

40701[/snapback]

Yes, maths or fossils could be applied to God, and if found accurate could be claimed as scientific. I agree these things shouldn't be limited to evolution, or even natural sciences. Could you please show the God formula, His bones, or any other evidences you consider empirical?

 

If the bases on which time hinges on is true. There are other possibilities that get ignored everyday because they do not support the major accepted view.

40701[/snapback]

Agree. This has been mentioned before, so I assume you are talking about supernatural possibilities? The problem is that no one has ever found a way of identifying or studying the supernatural. By definition I don't think it's possible. How exactly should science go about considering these other possibilities?

 

Saying that it is okay for a "scientific" theory to eliminate a religion, when it is not even supposed to be related. Is like putting baseball players on a football field to play a game they cannot because the playing feild is not set up for it.

40701[/snapback]

I don't quite buy the idea that science and religion are separate. I think it's unfortunate, but there is definitely overlap.

 

This certainly isn't the first time a science has written off a god. Zeus was no longer needed when lightening was explained. Ceres when fertility and photosynthesis was studied. Aphrodite when biological chemicals were discovered...etc etc.

 

Somewhere, some how, something is the same. Something that is the foundation for religion that is also a major foundation for evolution.

40701[/snapback]

Indeed. That similarity (although I wouldn't say it's foundational) is the explanation for humanities creation, and life's diversity.

 

Also, medicines that science works with are usually compounds from herbs altered to an extent to do specific tasks. Does that make science witchcraft?

40701[/snapback]

Umm...that's exactly what I was saying ;) . By your logic, yes it does. But I don't agree with that logic.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please show the God formula, His bones, or any other evidences you consider empirical?

Which criteria of "empirical" are you using, secular science or creation science?

 

I suspect you only want to make judgements through the paradigm of secular science, which of course will lead you to conclusions that the so-called evidence does not count as evidence.

 

Why don't you reverse your analysis and judge secular evidence through the paradigm of creation science? And do it as a serious exercise. When you come across problems normally attributed to creation science by secular science, look for ways around it that conform to creation science that you might plausibly accept, at least logically.

 

The problem I see with atheists who argue against creation science is they just don't take it as a serious alternative, and simply look for ways to knock it down. And all that tends to happen is an argument like in this thread where each side argues at cross-purposes from completely different epistemological and ontological positions. You have to accept and judge the evidence from the metaphysical position for which it would be evidence. You probably still won't agree with the conclusions, but it will give you insight.

;)

This has been mentioned before, so I assume you are talking about supernatural possibilities? The problem is that no one has ever found a way of identifying or studying the supernatural. By definition I don't think it's possible. How exactly should science go about considering these other possibilities?

Secular science shouldn't. Because secular science is not about supernatural possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which criteria of "empirical" are you using, secular science or creation science?

 

I suspect you only want to make judgements through the paradigm of secular science, which of course will lead you to conclusions that the so-called evidence does not count as evidence.

40829[/snapback]

Sorry Loungehead, but I don't see the need to differentiate. Regardless of the field you are in there are certain methods that need to be upheld for it to be called science. I don't see why secular science should have different rules to creation science. They're both science after all.

 

Why don't you reverse your analysis and judge secular evidence through the paradigm of creation science?  And do it as a serious exercise.  When you come across problems normally attributed to creation science by secular science, look for ways around it that conform to creation science that you might plausibly accept, at least logically.

40829[/snapback]

It may not always be apparent in my writing, but I do. As you said later in your post "you probably still won't agree with the conclusions, but it will give you insight."

When I first came here I was interested in finding out how the 'other side' thought. I couldn't for the life of me believe that all creationists were wack-jobs, like is so often portrayed.

And after reading through many months of posts I still don't agree with the creationist perspective, but I can at least appreciate how one might be lead there.

 

The problem I see with atheists who argue against creation science is they just don't take it as a serious alternative, and simply look for ways to knock it down.

40829[/snapback]

No doubt, and I know I've been guilty of doing as such. Probably more often than I'd like to admit ;)

 

Secular science shouldn't.  Because secular science is not about supernatural possibilities.

40829[/snapback]

Again I want to reiterate that I don't see why two sciences should rely on solely different methodologies. And if they do, how will we ever reach a unanimous conclusion?

If creation science has ways of testing for the supernatural I don't see any reason why secular science couldn't use the same methods.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Loungehead, but I don't see the need to differentiate. Regardless of the field you are in there are certain methods that need to be upheld for it to be called science. I don't see why secular science should have different rules to creation science. They're both science after all.

I agree both are science, but each are based on different metaphysical positions. For example, the epistemological basis of knowledge in secular science is different from knowledge in creationist science (use of scripture, assumption of God.. etc).

 

In fact I would like to know what constitutes Philosophy of Creation Science because it clearly does not conform to Philosophy of Science I learnt in a secular university. Creation Science can be explained in part by inductivism, but not by falsificationism or Hypothetico-deductive model. At least not yet, if Creation Science's aim is to be considered by the same criteria as secular science. However, I'm not sure that is its aim, because it has some fundamental metaphysical differences in which the two would be comparing apples to oranges.

It may not always be apparent in my writing, but I do. As you said later in your post "you probably still won't agree with the conclusions, but it will give you insight."

 

When I first came here I was interested in finding out how the 'other side' thought. I couldn't for the life of me believe that all creationists were wack-jobs, like is so often portrayed.

 

And after reading through many months of posts I still don't agree with the creationist perspective, but I can at least appreciate how one might be lead there.

Please forgive my presumption.

 

I agree with you that creationists are not "wack-jobs". I also believe their system of thought is rational, even if I do not agree with it. However, I don't know of any books that explain philosophical basis of the system the way Philosophy of Science does for secular science. That is why I am here.

Again I want to reiterate that I don't see why two sciences should rely on solely different methodologies. And if they do, how will we ever reach a unanimous conclusion?

 

If creation science has ways of testing for the supernatural I don't see any reason why secular science couldn't use the same methods.

40836[/snapback]

To intepret the two sciences as having a similar methodology ignores fundamental metaphysical doctrines that differ between the two.

 

I'm not sure the supernatural can be tested, because it assumes that supernatural conforms to our system of reasoning. In "What Designed the Designer" thread I argue that logic cannot be used to find conclusions about God. I think logic can help to understand God, but it won't provide irrefutable explanations either way. Its just a tool to arrive at understanding, where other conditions (like faith) are required for a deeper understanding. How that works, is not completely clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive my presumption.

40838[/snapback]

Not at all :lol: It occurs often enough and I know I've been guilty of blocking out other possibilities before, so it's hardly an unfair assumption to make.

 

I agree with you that creationists are not "wack-jobs".  I also believe their system of thought is rational, even if I do not agree with it.  However, I don't know of any books that explain philosophical basis of the system the way Philosophy of Science does for secular science.  That is why I am here.

40838[/snapback]

Again, I don't think having a slightly different philosophical approach should change the science being done. It will of course offer a difference in bias :P

 

But it seems as though you're fishing for someone to give a definition of creation science philosophy, which I'd also be interested in learning. So I think I'll stop arguing the point and see if someone can fill us in on this, rather than making my own assumptions :D

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't think having a slightly different philosophical approach should change the science being done. It will of course offer a difference in bias :P

Generally I agree, but I'm wanting to take Creation Science seriously - as a "science", if that is what it claims to be. But it does not seem to fit with what we know about science in terms of the Philosophy of Science. For example, the use of Biblical text is not science. Another example is the Discovery Institute claims that Intelligent Design is falsifiable.

 

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/fi...load.php?id=494

 

"The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effectâ€â€Âfinding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation." - Intelligent Design is Falsifiable 2005

 

The criteria of falsfiability in the above is vague. It does not state physical and chemical conditions of the environment that would be needed to test ID. Would the environment be vacuous or extreme temperatures? Of which both we could simulate on Earth, thus test ID. And what sort of scientific discoveries in relation to biology would be made in an environment hostile to life. The claim biological discoveries can be made in a hostile environment is absurd.

 

The suggestion that the opposite case (of habital environment) would also falsify intelligent design, seems to be a convoluted way of saying, "Intelligent Design can be falsified by closing our eyes."

 

:lol:

But it seems as though you're fishing for someone to give a definition of creation science philosophy, which I'd also be interested in learning. So I think I'll stop arguing the point and see if someone can fill us in on this, rather than making my own assumptions :D

Yes, I would like to be directed to quality material on the Philosophy of Creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arch and Loungehead. Very interesting reading. I have an observation and a question.

 

For there to be any chance of a fair debate all sides must agree on certain terms. Emperical evidence being one of those terms. ID does claim to be science, and must follow the same rules. Evo's must also, and I have witnessed that to often not be the case. I believe in a literal Bible. I also believe 2+2=4. One does not eliminate the other. Truth does not change to convenience my or any other belief.

 

What, in your opinions, does "falsifiable" mean?

 

I also believe you (loungehead I believe) are correct. Quoting the Bible has no relevece to proving ID. It can be quoted though, to prove itself (therefore the author) correct, at least in part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms