rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:baddog1 wrote:Ros:
Do you believe that creation (of the universe, earth, everything that we know...) is 'magic'?
No. I don't know what caused the BB to occur, and I don't know what came before it.
Was the BB a result of natural forces operating within the laws of science?
I don't know if it was natural forces or not. We do know that it was not the natural forces of physics that science currently understands, simply because all of the physical forces and elements that we know about are contained within, and part of, the Universe. Even the flow of time itself is an aspect of the Universe. We don't even know if time existed outside of our Universe. And without time, there is no cause and effect, and it's hard to say that anything got "Created" without cause and effect. We simply don't know what happened outside of our Universe. We don't even have a way to conceptualize the parameters involved.
real life wrote:If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?
If you define the unknown as being equivalent to the supernatural, then yes.
No, I wasn't.
rosborne979 wrote:But the unknown is not equivalent to the supernatural, otherwise everything we don't know would be defined as supernatural, and it isn't.
And if you define anything outside of our Universe to be supernatural, then yes..
Again, no I wasn't.
rosborne979 wrote: But if you do that, then you've multiplied entities without necessity, and you're faced with Occam's Razor again.
You seem to like to invoke Occam's razor without necessity.
While it is a cute colloquialism, it is hardly a scientific law.
In particular, to invoke it at this juncture simply shows you hadn't addressed my earlier point.
real life wrote:You seem to like to invoke Occam's razor without necessity.
Ha, that's a very neat little sound bite
You're good at those.
real life wrote:While it is a cute colloquialism, it is hardly a scientific law.
You seem to misunderstand them all, whether they are laws or not, so I guess it doesn't matter.
real life wrote:In particular, to invoke it at this juncture simply shows you hadn't addressed my earlier point.
I addressed your earlier points quite clearly (you just need to read them better). And I won't do it again (at least not in this thread)
What is known as Occam's Razor (which was not original to William of Occam) is certainly not a "law," nor is it a colloquialism. A colloquy is a conversation, and a colloquialism is a linguistic form which, whether or not it is grammatically correct, is common to conversational speech. You demonstrate that, in addition to science, history and logic, you are ignorant of linguistics.
The injunction entia non sunt multiplicanda--causes are not to be multiplied--is a statement of logical bases for any contention. If the teenager Jimmy objects to being grounded because it was Billy who broke the window when they were playing ball, and besides, he was grounded for denting the fender when it was actually Sue to did that, and anyway, he's been doing his own laundry for two months and Mom hasn't had to tell him to pick up his clothes--he provides a marvelous, if rather obvious, example of falling afoul of that logical injunction. The only part of his appeal which applies is that he was not responsible for breaking the window--his other appeals are meaningless in the context of the situation, and are examples of multiplying causes needlessly.
What is pathetic is not only that you don't understand what a colloquialism is, and therefore apply it stupidly to the Razor--you attempt an idiotic "emoticon"-based laugh at Ros in the process of demonstrating your ignorance.
real life wrote:real life wrote:real life wrote:If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?
If you define the unknown as being equivalent to the supernatural, then yes.
No, I wasn't.
rosborne979 wrote:But the unknown is not equivalent to the supernatural, otherwise everything we don't know would be defined as supernatural, and it isn't.
And if you define anything outside of our Universe to be supernatural, then yes..
Again, no I wasn't.
Then what the hell were you implying when you asked:
real life wrote:If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?
I listed the only two logical implications of your question, and you denied them both.
Allow me to quote myself, and to bump this up. For all of the bullshit with which "real life" and Baddog inundate this thread, neither of them have tackled the burden of the thread. Neither of them have offered any logically based argument that there is any proof for creationism.
Setanta wrote:So much illusion, so much delusion.
So far, i have not seen a single theist tackle the titular question, and attempt to provide a scintilla of evidence for creationsim.
That is the burden of this thread--Wilso said "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism." The theists have provided no such proof, so even if they tell him there is, they have failed to demonstrate the case.
However, people like "real life" and Baddog will continue to palaver, and to attempt to create situations in which others are required to "disprove" a creation. It's a dog and pony show, folks--unless and until the theists provide some sort of proof for creationism to be debated, this is a sterile exchange.
Setanta wrote:Allow me to quote myself, and to bump this up. For all of the bullshit with which "real life" and Baddog inundate this thread, neither of them have tackled the burden of the thread. Neither of them have offered any logically based argument that there is any proof for creationism.
Setanta wrote:That is the burden of this thread--Wilso said "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism." The theists have provided no such proof, so even if they tell him there is, they have failed to demonstrate the case.
I see you're having a blissful Monday set. Top of it to you.
As to your cry of technicality for the burden of this thread - you're correct, I did not directly and/or succinctly answer it. My apologies to you & (willie).
Wilso said "Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism."
My answer: OK.
As long as you, or any other theist, is willing to acknowledge that there is no proof for creationism, i'm happy.
Setanta wrote:As long as you, or any other theist, is willing to acknowledge that there is no proof for creationism, i'm happy.
On one of the 1st few pages of this thread; willie provided his expectation of the key word, "evidence" and even included a definition.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/a2k-post2860529.html#2860529
Quote:ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
Genesis
indicates about as
clearly as possible the subject of creationism.
Yes, i would be interested in just precisely how Genesis indicates creation in the sense of providing evidence.
It is noteworthy, however, that i have asked for responses to the titular burden of the thread--proof for creationism. The quote of Wilso provided by Baddog is taken out of context. Wilso made that post in response to Neologist's contention that there is a problem with the word evidence. Wilso did not at any time say that the definition he provided in the that exchange would constitute acceptable proof of creationism.
maporsche wrote:baddog1 wrote:Genesis indicates about as clearly as possible the subject of creationism.
Please elaborate.
creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis. Merriam Webster
creationism is
clearly indicated (as per willie's definition) in Genesis 1.
baddog1 wrote:maporsche wrote:baddog1 wrote:Genesis indicates about as clearly as possible the subject of creationism.
Please elaborate.
creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis. Merriam Webster
creationism is
clearly indicated (as per willie's definition) in Genesis 1.
That's your evidence? Come on, get real. Based on your argument, all my science fiction books are evidence of various creations as well. If you can't do better than that, then you're just playing word games.
Setanta wrote:Yes, i would be interested in just precisely how Genesis indicates creation in the sense of providing evidence.
It is noteworthy, however, that i have asked for responses to the titular burden of the thread--proof for creationism. The quote of Wilso provided by Baddog is taken out of context. Wilso made that post in response to Neologist's contention that there is a problem with the word evidence. Wilso did not at any time say that the definition he provided in the that exchange would constitute acceptable proof of creationism.
LOL. I should've known that set would start dancing! :wink:
Let me get this straight.
Willie says this:
Quote:" Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position."
Then after being questioned about the meaning of evidence; wille says this:
Quote:"ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove."
Genesis 1 'indicates clearly' the entire premise of creationism - and willie's taken out of context.
Twist on down to the
busstop set! :wink:
I'm not dancing, and neither are you, although i suspect you like to learn to dance. Wilso has asked for testable evidence. How do you allege that any part of Genesis constitutes testable evidence?
baddog1 wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:baddog1 wrote:rosborne979 wrote:baddog1 wrote:Hi Ros:
Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation?
No, because science doesn't ever accept magic as an answer.
But science MUST consider that anything (even if it's "magic") is potentially viable if it is as yet scientifically unproven. (Such as creation.) Even when science doesn't have a theory to explain something (such as the origin of the Universe), it still doesn't posit theories which use magic in them.
Hmmm. Many examples come to mind that disagree with your thoughts here. Personal flight, space travel, communication via airwaves... All were considerd to be "magic" prior to discovery and invention. Science simply stops at its boundaries and says, "I don't know".
Strongly disagree ros. If science said "I don't know", would surgery be here? Penicillin? Cell phones? And that's a much more flexible stance than to assume a "bounded" condition.
Not sure what you mean here.
The whole reason science has been so successful as a tool for understanding the world around us is that magic (or poofism) is simply not an acceptable answer in science.
"Magic" as it were is the proverbial carrot for all of science.
Every time you invoke magic as the answer to something, you stop the process of understanding.
In the matter of creation; no one inferred that magic is the answer. At this point in time - what happened in relation to creation is "magic". The philosophy of magic held the human race back for eons and created a plethora of reinforced emotional realities which became entrenched in human culture, in some cases to the exclusion of physical evidence (delusion). We call them religions.
To say, "I don't know", is not equivalent to saying, "It was magic (supernatural)"
To say, "It could be "magic" is not equivalent to saying It cannot not exist.
I have to say, I expected better. These responses to Ros' statements fall a bit short. I'm not even sure how you could write them in honesty. Flight and EM communication were only considered to be magic by the very same people who believed in the magic of creation.
Cmon Hokie. You're not serious!
"...Keen to sell his invention, Bell approached the Post Offices and commercial organisations responsible for carrying mail. The U.S. Post Office turned him down, as did Western Union. Then he approached the British Post Office, whose Chief Engineer, Sir William Preece was one of Britain's most distinguished scientists. Preece was a Fellow of the Royal Society who had studied under the great Michael Faraday himself. Preece examined Bell's invention, but he, too, rejected it on the grounds that, "England has plenty of small boys to run messages." Preece later surpassed even this judgment. When told that Thomas Edison was researching an incandescent electric lamp with a high-resistance filament, Preece described it as "A completely idiotic idea...."
and
"...But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists..."
from:
http://www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm
So where in all of your copy-and-paste-ings does it say these things were considered magic by these scientists? The fact that they did not believe them at first has nothing to do with this point. Saying "we don't believe you" is not the same as saying "it must be supernatural!" And further, I would say this goes farther to erode your case. These science-minded folk had testaments and pictures of an airborne plane and didn't just say accept it blindly. The required it to be proven. These is in obvious contract to the bible and its followers who need nothing more than mistranslated words on an untraceable book.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:real life wrote:real life wrote:If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?
If you define the unknown as being equivalent to the supernatural, then yes.
No, I wasn't.
rosborne979 wrote:But the unknown is not equivalent to the supernatural, otherwise everything we don't know would be defined as supernatural, and it isn't.
And if you define anything outside of our Universe to be supernatural, then yes..
Again, no I wasn't.
Then what the hell were you implying when you asked:
real life wrote:If the laws of science (i.e. naturalism) were NOT operative prior to the BB, then isn't the cause of the BB 'supernatural' by definition?
I listed the only two logical implications of your question, and you denied them both.
I indicated nothing regarding whether the laws of science were 'known' or 'unknown' at the time of the BB.
I think we would agree that the laws of science do not come into being when they are discovered by man, the laws were operative all along.
So, were the laws of science (i.e. natural causes) operative prior to the BB?
If your position is that these laws commenced with the 'genesis' of space/time at the point of the BB, then whatever caused such to commence is by definition 'supernatural', as it operated outside of and prior to natural causes.
baddog1 wrote:
Then after being questioned about the meaning of evidence; wille says this:
Quote:"ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove."
Genesis 1 'indicates clearly' the entire premise of creationism - and willie's taken out of context.
Twist on down to the
busstop set! :wink:
In "indicates clearly" we should consider the source. The Bible is not a scientific journal. It has nothing to do with science. A lot of things are clearly indicated every day. But unless they are clearly indicated by a bona fide scientific study, they are meaningless for the purposes of providing proof. Obviously.
There were so many typos in y above post, I had to repost it for my own sake:
So where in all of your copy-and-paste-ings does it say these things were considered magic by these scientists? The fact that they did not believe them at first has nothing to do with this point. Saying "we don't believe you" is not the same as saying "it must be supernatural!" And I would say this goes farther to erode your case. These science-minded folk had testaments and pictures of an airborne plane and didn't just accept it blindly. They required it to be proven. These is in obvious contrast to the bible and its followers who need nothing more than mistranslated words on an untraceable book.
