(September 6, 2013 at 6:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
P2. Creationism is a methodology that explains the natural Universe.
C. Therefore, creationism is science.

Valid and sound!

Hardly. P2 is totally wrong because creationism is a methodology which uses supernatural explanations for the natural universe. Total fail, creationism is not science.

(September 10, 2013 at 8:33 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I think proving the existence of a deity by means of science would certainly turn a few heads.

Yes, especially considering it’s impossible because science does not deal with proof.

Quote: However, you would need to first demonstrate that your god exists.

It’s not hard to do so, but it is a matter of deduction, not science.

Quote: After that any presupposition of his meddling in the creation of the universe can properly be explored.

Meddling? You can’t even explain how anything happens in Nature without God. Try it.

Quote: You'll have to come up with some mechanism by which this god creates, of course, if you're going to do this scientifically.

According to...?

Quote: After all, like you said, science deals with testing hypotheses (thank you for correcting me on that one).

That it does, but God creating the Universe is a necessary presupposition, not a hypothesis. I am not sure why that seems to be so difficult for you to understand.

(September 11, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Hardly. P2 is totally wrong because creationism is a methodology which uses supernatural explanations for the natural universe. Total fail, creationism is not science.

Total fail is right! Trying to masquerade methodological naturalism as being synonymous with the definition of science. There is nothing in the definition of science requiring that the explanation itself must be natural, it must only be explaining and studying the natural universe. Nice try though! Creationism is science.

Science- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

(September 11, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There is nothing in the definition of science requiring that the explanation itself must be natural,

Um, wrong. The definition of science is learning about the natural world through observation and experiment. Therefore, you can't go making supernatural claims without proof. Science has a set of rules for all evidence to follow, and if you start claiming miracles or making up explanations that fall outside the realm of the natural world, that is, a supernatural explanation, it's not science. You're just making shit up and expecting people to accept your explanation without evidence.

Read that again. It's not science, it's making shit up. You want biblical creationism to be science? Fine. First prove God exists, then prove that the only way the universe could have come about is because he made it. And trying to poke holes in the Big Bang theory is not proof that your idea is correct.

That's how science is done. It's not saying, "Well this was written in an old book that a lot of people believe is true today" and claiming that is proof.

Quote:Science- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Please cite the observations and experiments which show that God speaking the universe into existence is the only rational explanation for how the universe came about.

(September 12, 2013 at 11:17 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Um, wrong. The definition of science is learning about the natural world through observation and experiment. Therefore, you can't go making supernatural claims without proof. Science has a set of rules for all evidence to follow, and if you start claiming miracles or making up explanations that fall outside the realm of the natural world, that is, a supernatural explanation, it's not science. You're just making shit up and expecting people to accept your explanation without evidence.

Again, you’re conflating methodological naturalism with general science. Creationism is not methodological naturalism, you’re absolutely right; but that does not mean it’s not science. Creationists do not postulate that miracles are the explanation for what we observe in our operational sciences, so that was a mischaracterization on your part. God is always governing His creation, so to rule out any explanation that involves divine agency would be to rule out all explanations. Science does not presuppose naturalism.

Quote: Read that again.

Read what again?

Quote: It's not science, it's making shit up. You want biblical creationism to be science? Fine. First prove God exists, then prove that the only way the universe could have come about is because he made it. And trying to poke holes in the Big Bang theory is not proof that your idea is correct.

Science does not deal with proof. The proof of God’s existence is a matter of deduction. Science presupposes that God exists because it presupposes regularity in Nature. By championing naturalism all you are doing is undermining the very foundation for all science. Not only is creationism science, but it is the only logically defensible and internally consistent form of science. Other scientists must steal their axiomatic beliefs from the creationist.

Quote: That's how science is done. It's not saying, "Well this was written in an old book that a lot of people believe is true today" and claiming that is proof.

Science does not deal with proof.

Quote:Please cite the observations and experiments which show that God speaking the universe into existence is the only rational explanation for how the universe came about.

It is even simpler than that, the very act of science proves that God spoke the Universe into existence. If the Universe was purely natural, science would not be possible.

Speaking things into existence sounds more miraculous than scientific. How does god's voice create? What is the process?

(September 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Speaking things into existence sounds more miraculous than scientific.

What do you mean?

Quote: How does god's voice create? What is the process?

Why are you assuming there must be a process to creation?

Because saying "godidit" seems lazy, and at the same time it explains nothing. When NASA launches a rocket into orbit, is it done by magic? Do we accept that the process of propulsion is miraculous? Or rather do we look to the theory of rocket science to establish the true cause for the launching of space probes and shuttles? Most people will agree with the latter.

You don't get to just fill in gaps of knowledge with "godidit". If we can't explain something, then honest people will not lie and say that the reason is god. They will instead say "I don't know", and then move on from the subject in question. The cause or reason for anything as of yet unknown or in question does not get to be an unproven and unknowable entity just because you like the sound of it.

Saying godidit is the ultimate copout, and it halts any real progress on exploring the unknown.

(September 13, 2013 at 8:37 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Because saying "godidit" seems lazy, and at the same time it explains nothing.

Why? So saying, “the Egyptians built the pyramids” is a lazy position and explains nothing? We must therefore postulate a purely unintelligent and natural explanation for the formation of the pyramids even though we know it is wrong? Your faith commitment to naturalism is ruling out the best explanation we have.

Quote: When NASA launches a rocket into orbit, is it done by magic? Do we accept that the process of propulsion is miraculous? Or rather do we look to the theory of rocket science to establish the true cause for the launching of space probes and shuttles?

If God were not governing His creation, the launching of rockets would be impossible. Is concluding that NASA created those rockets also a lazy inference that explains nothing?

Quote: Most people will agree with the latter.

Most people are perfectly capable of being wrong.

Quote: You don't get to just fill in gaps of knowledge with "godidit".

I am not; knowledge itself requires that God did it.

Quote: If we can't explain something, then honest people will not lie and say that the reason is god.

So saying, “the Egyptians built the pyramids” is merely a lie used to fill in the gaps since we currently do not have a purely natural and unguided mechanism that can build pyramids? Science does not disallow for the use of creative agencies as explanations.

Quote: They will instead say "I don't know", and then move on from the subject in question. The cause or reason for anything as of yet unknown or in question does not get to be an unproven and unknowable entity just because you like the sound of it.

God is a proven and known entity, so I am not sure what you’re referring to.

Quote: Saying godidit is the ultimate copout, and it halts any real progress on exploring the unknown.

“Saying theEgyptiansdidit is the ultimate copout, and it halts any real progress on exploring the pyramids.”

So the creation of the pyramids MUST be steeped in mythology, akin to the notion that god created the universe. Saying NASA built those rockets must also be of mythological proportions, for we have no evidence besides religious texts that tell us that these things were created, right? I made a peanut butter jelly sandwich, but saying that I did it is obviously a copout, for we need to explore exactly how I did so. Let's put these events on par with the start of the universe, shall we?

The missing ingredient in all this is evidence. There is evidence to support that the pyramids were created, and that the Egyptians probably did it. NASA undoubtedly made those rockets. As for me and my sammich...well, if you doubt I can make one of those, then you need help.

Now, show us your evidence that god, and nothing else, created the universe. You don't think it was by natural means? Well, this is your project to work on then. At this point, if you tell us god made the universe, we may as well say Bobo the clown did it, if not Barney the Dinosaur. Perhaps the Power Rangers had a hand in it somehow. Saying that god made the universe may help you sleep at night, but it gets you no closer to the truth, whatever it may be.

(September 13, 2013 at 7:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 13, 2013 at 5:23 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Speaking things into existence sounds more miraculous than scientific.

What do you mean?

Quote: How does god's voice create? What is the process?

Why are you assuming there must be a process to creation?

Well, shit...Sir Paul said 'Let it Be' aloud, and it was good...yeah. It appealed to the emotions, you know?

But then John said 'Imagine', and Pow! McCartney who?


(John>George>Paul>Pete Best>Jesus>Ringo)