quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON you say that creationist/id'ers (what is that?) dont distinguish scientific fact and observation from their fundamental religious beliefs. I am not part of any creationist groups, so I don't know them or their beliefs.

ID = Intelligent Design. It’s the latest concept that Creationists have been riding on for the last 20 years or so. Modern Creationism, more or less. The most touted IDers are Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box), Rev. Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), and William Dembski (No Free Lunch). Other Creationists/IDers like Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial, and founder of Discovery Institute – www.discovery.org) and Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) are also noted. All of these individuals have a common goal: overturning Evolutionary Theory with their debunked Creation Science. They are even willing to overlook their own deeply contrasted beliefs. For example, Phillip Johnson (who’s a lawyer I might add, not a scientist) I think is a young earth creationist (YEC), while Behe believes many evolutionary events occur, including the evolutionary ascent of man. Yet despite these huge differences in beliefs, Johnson often refers to Behe for many of his arguments, as well as considering him a fellow researcher in his Discovery Institute.

Finally and most seriously, they are willing to overlook the basic scientific principles of the scientific method and observation to allow their steadfast religious beliefs cloud their view of evolutionary principles. In essence, their Creationism is nothing less than negative logic, with absolutely no positive evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, their “evidence” is and could never be tested (Godidit, therefore it’s true), and it cannot be falsifiable. In order for any evidence to be sound, it must meet these 3 criteria, which Creationism/ID clearly does not. Evolutionary Theory, however, continues to meet this criteria.

quote:

I agree with you guys that people who pose wacked out theories against science will not hold up.

I’m glad we agree on this.

quote:

Once again I will say that Judaism, and my logical understandings go hand in hand with Science.

Please clarify.

quote:

So you see, if you can put aside all the mishmosh of religion, and focus on the fact that I am saying there is something out there that 99.9% of the people don't know about, which is a scientific valid approach to Hashem, and understand that with objectivity and logical analysis you can agree, that it is plausible.

Again, please clarify this scientific valid approach to Hashem so that I may understand better. Furthermore, is it positive evidence? Testable? Falsifiable?

quote:

Yah I want to answer everything here, except I find it hard to find a valid argument sometimes in these points, it seems like like not so much a question as much as a very flaky point... Please if you don't mind, in question form if possible post what exactly you want answered in this post so far that I have missed?

I believe you are beginning a dodge here. There have been a number of people here that have given you the same valid arguments against your points, including myself. More specifically, the probability argument you originally posted to create this thread, which has been given valid refutations against. I reiterate - I have not seen a response from you yet in regards to these refutations. As Spin Doctor had said earlier, “just because something is highly IMPROBABLE, it does not mean it is IMPOSSIBLE”. People like Denton and Shapiro make seemingly plausible arguments against evolutionary pathways to the lay person, but to an evolutionary biologist their arguments are straw men. A more touted arguer, William Dembski, utilizes his mathematical expertise to show such improbabilities are so incredibly unrealistic.

What’s revealed, however, is that many of these folks don’t have a very clear understanding of Evolutionary processes. They tend to view evolution in a more linear fashion, which is an extremely elementary and unrealistic view. As a result, they contrive counterarguments based on this improbability, of which their counterarguments have no positive, testable, and falsifiable elements of truth. In Dembski’s case, he essentially used the wrong mathematical formula in his attempts to invalidate evolutionary chance.

As I stated earlier, what’s often used is the Posterior Probability Fallacy: The probability of an event occurring, after it has already occurred, is exactly 100%. Just because a given event has occurred in a certain way doesn't mean it couldn't have been just as successfully configured in a bazillion other possible ways. Furthermore, this probability argument Creationist/IDers use is nothing more than the logical fallacy known as Argument from Incredulity (It is soooooo unlikely to happen, therefore godidit).

As yet another example for you, let’s consider the YEC view of life and consider the probability of your own existence. Suppose the Earth is as young as many creationists say it is, about 5000 years old. What then is the probability that you would have been born? Let's generously assume that the average length of a generation over the last 5000 years has been 30 years. Let's also assume, very generously, that the average probability of an individual living long enough to have children and then to actually have them is 95%. The probability that all of your great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers survived and had children leading to you (or to anyone) would then be about 1 in 25 million! Somehow we all won the lottery. Now suppose you aren’t a YEC, but believe the earth is much older, say hundreds of thousands, or perhaps (gasp) billions of years. Given this scenario, the probability of your very existence is exponentially unbelievably humongous! But yet, here you are. So no matter what you believe in in terms of how old the planet is, your very existence, by playing with probabilities, shouldn’t be possible. You see how easily it is to debunk such logic? This is flawed logic being used over and over by Creationists.

quote:

I am waiting for a response from a professor from what Drug_tit0 said, and I sent someone else a few points that people made, because I want to see what my teachers would say about these things. Once I get some answers from them about those things, I will write it up here, and we will discuss it..

I anticipate those answers.

quote:

Do you want to start a new thread in the meantime about creationism? I'd love to discuss it. But realize my view is not of the 'western believer'. I hold a unique logical view based on science and the jewish approach.

The ball’s in your court. I’m game if you decide to do so. I am curious about your beliefs and would like you to expound on them further.

quote:

So I ask remember not to catagorize me with those guys like the 'moonies' etc...

Fair enough, but it might do you more credit not to cite these “moonies” and dare anyone to refute them, which was easily done. The fact that you were not aware of what “ID” stood for earlier indicates to me that you’re not as knowledgeable in this particular area, and that someone might be more or less spoon feeding you Creationist propaganda to serve their specific religious purposes to steadfast beliefs. It is quite common to the unknowing to fall into this trap and believe Creationist propaganda. But a little bit of knowledge and education in evolution and perhaps a little lurking onto certain internet forums in Creationism/Evolution debates can give you a great deal more understanding on the flaws of Creationist arguments. As stated earlier, they really are the same arguments being regurgitated and passed on for generations.

quote:

everything I believe and hold, is based on logic and fact, so we have some common ground!!!

I have my doubts, but I’m willing to listen.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 As yet another example for you, let’s consider the YEC view of life and consider the probability of your own existence. Suppose the Earth is as young as many creationists say it is, about 5000 years old. What then is the probability that you would have been born? Let's generously assume that the average length of a generation over the last 5000 years has been 30 years. Let's also assume, very generously, that the average probability of an individual living long enough to have children and then to actually have them is 95%. The probability that all of your great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers survived and had children leading to you (or to anyone) would then be about 1 in 25 million! Somehow we all won the lottery. Now suppose you aren’t a YEC, but believe the earth is much older, say hundreds of thousands, or perhaps (gasp) billions of years. Given this scenario, the probability of your very existence is exponentially unbelievably humongous! But yet, here you are. So no matter what you believe in in terms of how old the planet is, your very existence, by playing with probabilities, shouldn’t be possible. You see how easily it is to debunk such logic? This is flawed logic being used over and over by Creationists.

You're right! It's so exceedingly improbable that events lead to my existence ... therefore I'm pretty sure I don't exist!

Hehe good one.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider On a side note, it's interesting to see how religion so readily embraces science with respect to the big bang theory to propogate the idea of the creator yet so casually dismisses the theory of evolution to surmise how we came into existence. If God created a perfectly working and logical universe in order to "hide" his existence, why would he come out of "hiding" to create us??? If the universe spawned from a singularity to the galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, etc., why is it so difficult to believe that this perfectly logical and scientific universe created us??? I've always despised how organized religion seems to have a certain sense of arrogance about it. God created us in his image, we are his chosen people, etc.

- Well, when once we both die, ( talking from a I believe in god point of view ).. I'll remind you of this day when you posted this questions on TA.. and ask god himself, but IM sure he'll just answer them with us not even asking, .. so try to be good boy and dont go to hell

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON that is not logical, and therefore not plausible. I hold that anything in reality must be logical, things don't happen for a no reason, the fact that universe was created alone must signify some reason.

Allow me to play Parmenides' advocate here for a brief moment, merely for the sake of philosophical banter, and ask how you can presume to know that the universe was created, or even began for that matter?

You're presupposing linear time, which is a common perception, but far from the only one.

Logic can make *many* implausible things plausible if you give it a chance.

___________________
Einen Moment von Freundlichkeit wie daß in einem Traum

Good God (pun intended), why does it even matter whether the universe was created by an intelligent being or was a probabilistic "fluke"?

In either case, the only thing that is certain is that it exists, and that you are alive, right now, right here. Isn't that enough?

I can yap all day about whether I believe in God or whether I believe in the god of Probability, but in the end, it's all philosophizing, and philosophy is all just going in circles; it never gets you anywhere.

In search of the 'sublime', origins of the universe, end of the universe, "mysteries of the universe", etc. etc., we keep missing the present moment. That is all that is really available to us, all that is ultimately real, and thus the only thing that matters.

My quick $0.02.

i have not read the whole thread, im wondering if you have touched on:

superstring theory

and an eternal soul versus noesis / cognitive operation

something interesting i received in my email

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994174

quote:

researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began.

And here is a little article for the creationists that believe the earth is 5000 years old ;p

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994175

quote:

The discovery of the world's oldest genitals proves that little has changed over the last 400 million years - at least for daddy-long-legs.

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Good God (pun intended), why does it even matter whether the universe was created by an intelligent being or was a probabilistic "fluke"?

Why it would matter would depend on what your views are.

For me it *doesn't* matter in an abstract sense, but I enjoy thinking about the possibilities, and because I enjoy it, I continue to do so, that's enough for me.

The question matters even more to theists because most theists seem to believe not only that God(s)(ess)(etc.) created the universe, but that they care about humanity, and are willing to reward based on the following of various sets of rules.

As a result, in a certain sense it's important for everyone to at least evaluate the arguments of both sides at some point in their life just to get piece of mind; either in the form of "I feel this religion is correct, and now I can live assured that I'll make it to paradise" or from a "Life has no inherent meaning, so I don't need to worry about spending a lot of time on theology for anything other than amusement" which is my stance.

There are countless other stances of course, but going further would be flogging the person who's flogging the dead horse.

quote:

In either case, the only thing that is certain is that it exists, and that you are alive, right now, right here. Isn't that enough?

That entirely depends on who you are, and what your views are. If you're only interested in the present, and you're good with that I don't have any issues, but it seems as though you have a problem with us going about *our* business...

quote:

I can yap all day about whether I believe in God or whether I believe in the god of Probability, but in the end, it's all philosophizing, and philosophy is all just going in circles; it never gets you anywhere.

I heartily disagree.

Philosophy in and of itself is a worthwhile endeavor as it allows us to more fully know ourselves, and to confront views that we have without any logical basis.

How many people do you know who believe in something, and can't articulate why beyond the typical "I just do!" response?

Personally, I enjoy more fully exploring my views and the views of other philosophy minded people, if it's not your thing, no big deal, but why bitch to us about something that we're obviously enjoying?

___________________
Einen Moment von Freundlichkeit wie daß in einem Traum

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb but it seems as though you have a problem with us going about *our* business...

quote:

but why bitch to us about something that we're obviously enjoying?

It's unfortunate you saw my post as "bitching" -- which was not the intention at all.

If I was "against" this discussion or any discussion, why would I even participate? What is the point of coming in and saying "this is wrong?" or "This is a waste of time?" Who am I to say that? Who am I even to say that what I think is "right" is the objective "truth"?

My tone is the way I present my arguments. Again, I personally tend not to philosophize in my posts, but rather to use an "in-your-face" tone. That is not to say I slander things about and generally talk nonsense; that is simply the way I choose to express myself.

quote:

I heartily disagree.

Good.

quote:

Philosophy in and of itself is a worthwhile endeavor as it allows us to more fully know ourselves, and to confront views that we have without any logical basis. How many people do you know who believe in something, and can't articulate why beyond the typical "I just do!" response?

I don't quite understand that last part -- are you trying to say that philosophy enables people to express why they have the beliefs that they do, or are you saying that it is because of philosophy that they can't?

quote:

Personally, I enjoy more fully exploring my views and the views of other philosophy minded people

And I say, you cannot understand reality through the human mind, and through language. Language is always an approximation; words are meant to represent certain meanings or, rather, our interpretations of certain things; they cannot be what they are representing. The word "tree" and an actual tree are two very, very different things. The word is just a construct of the mind -- a shadowy, impermanent thought; but an actual tree, the experience of a tree, is existence, is "truth."

Language is useful as a tool for survival, yes, and for communication -- expressing that you are hungry to your parent(s) or coordinating group actions during a hunt or selling food at the marketplace -- but it is not a good tool for grasping reality.

And, again, reality (the here-now) is all that matters, to the point of sounding tedious!

But in a way you were right about "bitching", CortexBomb -- in a way I am bitching -- and rightly so. This thread is already a lengthy 4 pages (in my browser), and what has been concluded? What has been accomplished?

But those are rhetorical questions -- indeed, what has ever been concluded about anything? People have been arguing about "God" and life and countless other things, for thousands of years. Surely, by now, any sane mind would realize that opinions and arguments are completely useless, and that something else is at work in this world -- that somehow we as a human race are basically missing the fundamentals of life, which is hollering at us and pounding at us 24/7. Yet we turn away, and talk and talk. If one understands even slightly how the human mind works, that one would see that "beliefs" and "opinions" are just thoughts, are just our own constructs. They do not have any real substance to them. If I am born a Muslim, why should I be following Islam for my entire life? I could just as easily have been born a Christian. Or an atheist. Then who is right? Who is wrong?

It's all pointless! Nobody is right or wrong, there is no God, there is no point to life. Why should there be? It's because of how our intellect works that we must assume a "cause" and a "purpose" to anything and everything. Can we not settle on "purposeless"?

But... Devil's advocate: Then why am I arguing about the lack of a point to life, that is just as bad as believing in God. Again, that is just imposing one's views on another.

You know, I don't even know myself why I come in here sometimes. It seems fruitful and at the same time a waste.

What I said, take it as you will. Even that is just words. What I want to say is that, you can say I am right, and I will agree with you, or you can say I'm wrong, and I will equally agree with you. But that won't change anything.

Last edited by Alccode on Sep-20-2003 at 04:38

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode If I was "against" this discussion or any discussion, why would I even participate? What is the point of coming in and saying "this is wrong?" or "This is a waste of time?" Who am I to say that? Who am I even to say that what I think is "right" is the objective "truth"? My tone is the way I present my arguments. Again, I personally tend not to philosophize in my posts, but rather to use an "in-your-face" tone. That is not to say I slander things about and generally talk nonsense; that is simply the way I choose to express myself.

Yes, unsurprisingly, a confrontational tone can make one come across that way, especially on the internet where we have to impart most emotions into the words with our imagination since we can't see the other person.

And who are you to say you're right? You're a sentient being that hopefully has spent some time thinking about this at some point in time. If you don't have an opinion that you're firm in then yes, why *are* you getting involved? Clearly this isn't the case though, you *do* have an opinion on things, so why try to say that you don't?

quote:

I don't quite understand that last part -- are you trying to say that philosophy enables people to express why they have the beliefs that they do, or are you saying that it is because of philosophy that they can't?

Actually I'm saying that Philosophy not only enables people to express why they have the beliefs that they do, but that it also allows people to understand why they have the beliefs that they do, which I think is much more important.

quote:

And I say, you cannot understand reality through the human mind, and through language. Language is always an approximation; words are meant to represent certain meanings or, rather, our interpretations of certain things; they cannot be what they are representing. The word "tree" and an actual tree are two very, very different things.

This is a couple of classical views, allow me to rebut, also classically.

Humans cannot think beyond the most basic, basic functions without the aid of language. So though it might be hindering your ability to think, it's also the only way that you know *how* to think, so I wouldn't be overly hasty in bashing it.

And many, myself included, would ask why objective reality matters when subjective reality is the only thing we'll ever experience.

And if one acknowledges that subjective reality is all we'll ever experience, then the 'actual' tree become a footnote while the tree that I'm thinking of becomes 'real' in all practical senses.

How exactly can one say that there's an objective reality out there definitively? We're fed information by our senses, as far as we can tell, but in an objective sense it's impossible to solidly say that objective anything exists except in the realm of our imaginations. ie: As something to reference in conversation, but nothing that you could actually demonstrate...like math's imaginary numbers, they don't really, *really* exist, but they're useful as an aid for human understanding...and the fact that we envision them gives them a form of sorts, and hence an existence.

quote:

And, again, reality (the here-now) is all that matters, to the point of sounding tedious!

Hold on a second here, are you trying to equate reality to this moment in space/time as opposed to the more traditional "World as it exists outside our senses" definition?

quote:

But in a way you were right about "bitching", CortexBomb -- in a way I am bitching -- and rightly so. This thread is already a lengthy 4 pages (in my browser), and what has been concluded? What has been accomplished?

Who are you to say what's right, or that this conversation is long? Or that nothing has been accomplished?

I think you have the right to, but you seem to have conceded that you don't in your opening...

And discussions, especially in philosophy aren't about getting firm, final conclusions in the "We all agree sense"...philosophy is about having a lengthy discussion, going home and digesting everything that was said, and formulating your own views based on all of that.

Philosophy isn't about coming to definitive conclusions, it's about enjoying the back and forth, and the growing that occurs in the process.

quote:

It's all pointless! Nobody is right or wrong, there is no God, there is no point to life. Why should there be? It's because of how our intellect works that we must assume a "cause" and a "purpose" to anything and everything. Can we not settle on "purposeless"?

Ah nihilism, the bulwark of modern civilization. Make sure to thank the modern German philosophers for your pluralistic nihilism.

I actually agree with you on a lot of points, I'm a firm believer in the fact that life has no purpose, and that at the end of it all we go back into non-existence, hence, there's no *good* reason to live in the objective sense.

That doesn't stop me from enjoying this, and continuing to want to live as a direct result, despite the fact that none of it has any meaning.

But no, people in general will *never* be able to settle on purposelessness. I, the socialist, will come across as incredibly elitist in saying this, but the masses by and large cannot, nor want to handle the truth as I perceive it, that life has no meaning.

People need something to cling to, they need a higher purpose, and let's face it, a lot of the lies religion pushes are very pretty, they dazzle the senses, and they make people feel secure and enjoy their lives more.

Yes, on the macro level I think religion is destructive, but on the micro it's beneficial to many people, and if it makes their lives better than why should we, who know that life has no meaning, want to take that away from them? There's no good reason to that I can see as it's not impacting my life in any significant way unless I want it to.

quote:

But... Devil's advocate: Then why am I arguing about the lack of a point to life, that is just as bad as believing in God. Again, that is just imposing one's views on another.

Yes, this is a good point...I'm glad you're contradicting yourself in this though, it's been interesting.

quote:

You know, I don't even know myself why I come in here sometimes. It seems fruitful and at the same time a waste. What I said, take it as you will. Even that is just words. What I want to say is that, you can say I am right, and I will agree with you, or you can say I'm wrong, and I will equally agree with you. But that won't change anything.

I don't know of any way of assimilating your points beyond taking it as I will, so yes, I'll do that

And yes, from your perspective that objective reality exists, and is something to be strived for, I'll agree with you, nothing has been changed.

But in my subjective reality things can be altered rather easily, so I'm glad you're taking the time to throw your views into this conversation that you degrade as overly long, and ultimately pointless.

Cheers.

___________________
Einen Moment von Freundlichkeit wie daß in einem Traum

Whoever wrote the original post is an idiot. If someone believes in Santa Claus and the tooth ferry we'd put them in a padded room. Yet we tolerate these religious freaks! Get your head out of your arse. The only reason you believe in God (the fact that you write G-d shows how brainwashed and pious you are) is because you are a brainless moron and believed everything your parents told you. Your arguments are totally silly. Take a course in probability and statistics. Try to comprehend the idea of conditional probabilities and also look at the idea of Bayesian statistics. Shit, how old are you man? You may have sat in a bology class but I don't think your brain was working the day they explained evolution. Even if there is a higher being, do you really think it is the God (G-d) that you read in your holy text? For crying out loud all religious texts are just a bunch of made up stories we wrote b/c we were primitive and needed a set of "rules" to help us understand the world and live peacefully together. (There's a simple game-theoretic explanation for the creation of religion, which is probably a good first approximation for why religion arose -- study game theory.) Why do I waste my breath? Some people are hopeless -- I know the dude who wrote the original message will never change cuz he's been brainwashed since childhood.