Sorry Creationists ... Evolutionary gap in early land animal fossil record filled

[Kulindahr]

Sure. I am not one to believe things merely because somebody tells me to. I only believe things when the evidence points in that direction. Scientific evidence has advanced our civilization more than anything else that has ever been known. And I have to say that the argument that it is necessary to have only one God not at all true. There is jut as much probability of having one god as there is many.

Also, I'm waiting on the math for your proof to the contrary.

"Proof"? I didn't say anything about a proof.

But in science and math, for any given phenomenon, you don't look for multiple causes, you look for one. For example, for any given curve, there's one equation only. It's sometimes referred to as the "elegance test", especially, I think, by physicists. It's why the standard model for particle physics makes many physicists unhappy: it keeps multiplying entities.

I've said it once, and I'll say it a million times. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge any argument on our side as valide, goes to show that you're not willing to debate this topic and that you aren't searching for the truth but rather to maintain your belief at all possible cost.

I haven't seen any argument from your side that stands up to examination. Am I supposed to accept one or two in spite of that? Sounds like you don't want me searching for truth, just being dishonest.

It all comes down to the fact that, nobody knows anything for sure. Nobody will ever know for sure whether or not God exists and those who claim otherwise are just ignorant (that being those who say they are sure God does not exist and those who assert they know God does exist.). The reason for this is because definition of a God makes sure that it cannot be known.

Any God worth the name will be the Creator. By definition, the Creator will be outside the universe. That's not to "make sure" He can't be known, it's the nature of the situation.

But that reminds me of another criterion: any Creator who wants His critters to know Him isn't going to be satisfied with just written communication.

So can't we all just just admit that we don't know and never will and we should just focus our life on understanding everything we can understand without killing our neighbors in the meantime? I have nothing wrong with religious people as long as they don't use their belief in actions against other people. The problem is, that has always happened, and will always happen as long as people still do believe. That's why I fight against religion.

You're fighting the wrong target -- the one you want is ideology. Religion has been a great force for advancement in many times and places, but when it turns ideological, it has the potential to do more harm than all the good it's ever done. But that's true of non-religious ideologies, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, feel obligated to point out that there has been an overuse of the false cause logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy to assume that God is the cause for anything in the Universe. You can look at the logical fallacy yourself.

Do you mean post hoc ergo propter hoc? or maybe non causa pro causa?


There's no logical fallacy in conjecturing a cause for something -- it's part of the scientific method. And there's no fallacy involved in concluding the conjecture is correct based on other evidence.

 

[youfiad]

"Proof"? I didn't say anything about a proof.

But in science and math, for any given phenomenon, you don't look for multiple causes, you look for one. For example, for any given curve, there's one equation only. It's sometimes referred to as the "elegance test", especially, I think, by physicists. It's why the standard model for particle physics makes many physicists unhappy: it keeps multiplying entities.



I haven't seen any argument from your side that stands up to examination. Am I supposed to accept one or two in spite of that? Sounds like you don't want me searching for truth, just being dishonest.



Any God worth the name will be the Creator. By definition, the Creator will be outside the universe. That's not to "make sure" He can't be known, it's the nature of the situation.

But that reminds me of another criterion: any Creator who wants His critters to know Him isn't going to be satisfied with just written communication.



You're fighting the wrong target -- the one you want is ideology. Religion has been a great force for advancement in many times and places, but when it turns ideological, it has the potential to do more harm than all the good it's ever done. But that's true of non-religious ideologies, too.

Well, you sort of danced around my points, but whatever. Relgion used to be good in the sciences, until the sciences started to clash with the fundamental belief of the religion. For the last 200 years. For the last few hundred years it has been led mostly by secularism and scientists who keep their faith and work apart.

 

[youfiad]

I agree with you. People fall back on mythical beings like god because they don't have any other explanation. They assume that there is a supreme being in control of everything...

There is nothing scientific about the notion of a deity. It's a personal feeling and belief that some have. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

I agree. Most people seem to want to assert that their belief is based on logic and fact, but it just isn't so. He has demonstrated that he isn't well versed in the scientific method when he said that science doesn't require experimentation and reproducibility. But whatever. I guess, altough I can't prove that I am more right than him, I will stick with the system with more evidence on my side and has shown some sort of result. God has never demonstrated anything amazing. He refuses to address this point though. Actually, he has refused to address the majority of my points. I guess what they say, ignorance is bliss. I wish I had enough faith to believe in an eternal God. But then again, I would love to believe in Santa Clause too; my hockey stick just broke and could use some replacing.

 

[youfiad]

Do you mean post hoc ergo propter hoc? or maybe non causa pro causa?


There's no logical fallacy in conjecturing a cause for something -- it's part of the scientific method. And there's no fallacy involved in concluding the conjecture is correct based on other evidence.

Arggg.. Yes there is. You can't just say what is a logical fallacy or not. Non sequitur is the logical fallacy more commonly known as the false cause fallacy. The definition is that in formal logic, it is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. If you understand this correctly you can say "Well, then science itself is a logical fallacy." You are absolutely correct. Science doesn't claim absolute conclusions from no matter what premise. Science is a collection of liklihoods.

In conclusion, please stop making up your own logical fallacies on-the-go.

 

[Apollo]

So? Allah is involved in practically the same creation myth. In fact, they must have come from the same source, because there are so many similarities it can't just be chalked up to coincidence. Allah created Adam from dust (or dirt, whatever) and Eve from his rib. There was even the paradisiacal garden and Satan's tree they weren't allowed to eat from but did anyway.

Face it. Your religion is the same as every other. Regardless of the details, it's still derived from a fantastical patchwork of ancient man-made myths with no basis in reality. Dude, it's the year 2012 for crying out loud.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same God, but he has many names. All three holy texts have the same base stories, but the prophets (or lack thereof) are different.

In the Quran, Jesus is acknowledged, but he is not the prophet of the muslims, Muhammed is. In the Bible, Muhammed isn't in there because he came after Jesus.

 

[youfiad]

Which also reminds me. Assuing that only one god is possible is a logical fallacy in itself that goes against the fallacy of a single cause.

 

[youfiad]

You have also been guilty of Ignoratio elenchi and red herring.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with you. People fall back on mythical beings like god because they don't have any other explanation.

This assertion alone shows you're clueless about the issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, you sort of danced around my points, but whatever. Religion used to be good in the sciences, until the sciences started to clash with the fundamental belief of the religion. For the last 200 years. For the last few hundred years it has been led mostly by secularism and scientists who keep their faith and work apart.

? ? I addressed your points directly.

I'd say "until the sciences seemed to start to clash", at least in the case of Christianity. Millions of Christians have no problem at all with science.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree. Most people seem to want to assert that their belief is based on logic and fact, but it just isn't so. He has demonstrated that he isn't well versed in the scientific method when he said that science doesn't require experimentation and reproducibility.

It doesn't. Experimentation and reproducibility required controlled experiments. Astronomers can't do controlled experiments. Paleontologists can't do controlled experiments. So unless you want to say astronomy and paleontology aren't science, then science doesn't require experimentation and reproducibility. Sure, they're preferable, but not required.

 

[Kulindahr]

Arggg.. Yes there is. You can't just say what is a logical fallacy or not. Non sequitur is the logical fallacy more commonly known as the false cause fallacy. The definition is that in formal logic, it is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. If you understand this correctly you can say "Well, then science itself is a logical fallacy." You are absolutely correct. Science doesn't claim absolute conclusions from no matter what premise. Science is a collection of liklihoods.

In conclusion, please stop making up your own logical fallacies on-the-go.

I've never heard non sequitur called "false cause". Post hoc ergo propter hoc addresses causes, as does non cause pro causa.

I haven't made up any fallacies. Just because I can't remember the names at times doesn't mean things aren't fallacies.
The one you were doing earlier was false equivalency.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which also reminds me. Assuing that only one god is possible is a logical fallacy in itself that goes against the fallacy of a single cause.

If assuming a single cause is a fallacy, then much of science is screwed. Assuming a single cause has been essential to the progress of particle physics, for example, and in astrophysics. Astronomers learn that the universe is not just expanding but expanding more rapidly . . . they don't assume there are multiple causes, they assume there's one. They see that stars in galaxies aren't orbiting the way theory says they should, they don't assume multiple causes, they assume one. Even geologists do it: once they accepted that continents drift, they assumed there would be one cause, not a bunch.

It's not reasonable to hold others to a standard science itself doesn't follow.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have also been guilty of Ignoratio elenchi and red herring.

I doubt it -- but, where?

 

[Kulindahr]

a little something to lighten the mood..

Now that's reproducible.

 

[youfiad]

If assuming a single cause is a fallacy, then much of science is screwed. Assuming a single cause has been essential to the progress of particle physics, for example, and in astrophysics. Astronomers learn that the universe is not just expanding but expanding more rapidly . . . they don't assume there are multiple causes, they assume there's one. They see that stars in galaxies aren't orbiting the way theory says they should, they don't assume multiple causes, they assume one. Even geologists do it: once they accepted that continents drift, they assumed there would be one cause, not a bunch.

It's not reasonable to hold others to a standard science itself doesn't follow.

Do you even read my messages? I'm not quite sure because I have already addressed these things several times.

 

[bankside]

Elegance -- that's the term I was trying to recall earlier.

It's more elegant that there's one source to everything than multiple sources -- that's Occam's Razor, too, I suppose. It's why particle scientists are frustrated when they think they're about to pin down THE root particle, and run into (another) swarm of entities -- it isn't elegant. It comes from knowing that for any graph, there is just one equation to describe it, and that for any one formula there are an infinite number of ways to fill it in.

Fair enough. Isn't zero more elegant than one? Occam's razor might also lead toward the idea that the universe has no source outside itself.

And it is distinct but dovetails with that idea: Given that there being a god would establish the possibility of something not needing a source, it is only fair to remark that rational atheists and rational christians both agree that some things do not need sources; either gods or universes.

I looked back at my post where I said "worshiper of science", and I have no clue what I was talking about -- it makes no sense at all at this point.

it made no sense at that point either

 

[youfiad]

I've never heard non sequitur called "false cause". Post hoc ergo propter hoc addresses causes, as does non cause pro causa.

I haven't made up any fallacies. Just because I can't remember the names at times doesn't mean things aren't fallacies.
The one you were doing earlier was false equivalency.

It doesn't fall under false equivilence. A false equivilence states that A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. I merely inserted your logic into an exactly equivilent argument with the same premises.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you even read my messages? I'm not quite sure because I have already addressed these things several times.

Okay, I just reread the thread, and I can't find where you addressed any of it except where you admitted science relies on fallacies.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fair enough. Isn't zero more elegant than one? Occam's razor might also lead toward the idea that the universe has no source outside itself.

Zero is also elegant. But if zero is the answer, then there's no reason zero isn't the answer for the universe, either. But the universe is here.

And as Milo in Bloom County said, the universe is just a little too orderly to be an accident.

And it is distinct but dovetails with that idea: Given that there being a god would establish the possibility of something not needing a source, it is only fair to remark that rational atheists and rational christians both agree that some things do not need sources; either gods or universes.

Heh -- except many of today's physicists are playing the "turtles all the way down" game, looking for some system of eternal dominoes that just keep falling, each knocking out a new universe.

it made no sense at that point either

LOL

I went back and read again. I wonder if I was eating moldy bread.