(February 8, 2014 at 12:28 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Unfortunately, he probably can, and likely thinks it's evidence of the veracity of a belief. There is, after all, still a Flat Earth society.

Being an atheist or materialist doesn't mean your rational about everything. There are still plenty of non-god crazy things to believe in.

No doubt, but a 6,000 year old earth?

I'm pretty sure even the Flat Earth society justifies their position with "cause 'da Bible says it."

Personally, I believe the earth to be less than 30 years old, and will dismiss any evidence to the contrary as being planted by Satan. Furthermore, anyone who questions this belief is either deluded by Scientism, a Evolutionist, or a Non-Creational Rational Empiricist, and damned to Hell for insulting my beliefs.

http://youtu.be/-M-vnmejwXo

This made me think of the Ham/Nye debate.

(February 8, 2014 at 12:28 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 11:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Unfortunately, he probably can, and likely thinks it's evidence of the veracity of a belief. There is, after all, still a Flat Earth society.

Being an atheist or materialist doesn't mean your rational about everything. There are still plenty of non-god crazy things to believe in.

String theory comes to mind. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no evidence to support the theory, though it's a nice belief that everything everywhere is connected in some way. If evidence for this theory were to emerge, we would have a glimmer of knowledge as to why natural laws actually exist.

@BadWriter

So far the only evidence is the "there are few if any alternatives and look how many apparently wonderful mathematical coincidences make this work, this must mean something" argument. I don't know whether it would explain the existence of laws of nature per se, but via the "landscape of vacua" it provides a very explicit framework to think about how universes with different laws of nature arise e.g in inflation, which ones those are, and how the anthropic principle figures into this.

Loved this.

(February 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

Loved this.

That was my favorite part of the questionnaire section. Obviously Ken has utter confidence that indisputable evidence won't show itsself, so he just says nothing. Whereas all Bill wants is just some indisputable evidence. Which of course won't happen.

I don't think he wants indisputable evidence; merely convincing evidence. He comes across as a rational guy.

Yeah. Like how he's be willing to believe that evolution didn't happen if there was something that went against it. Like seeing the same fossils in different layers of earth.

Ham and his ilk are so delusional, they don't understand what constitutes evidence, let alone scientific evidence.

It's an amazing display of Cargo Cult behavior.

Military airmen building landing strips in jungle areas observed natives fashioning air traffic towers, landing wands, and helmets, and performing rituals to coax down the same Sky Beasts the airmen did. It's not unlike what's happening here:

Ham and co. believe they can dress up in lab coats, use words like "theory" and "scientific," and their imitative theatrics are equal to empirical scientific enquiry, when they don't understand the mechanics behind what they're imitating.

---

(February 10, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I don't think he wants indisputable evidence; merely convincing evidence. He comes across as a rational guy.

You mean all the convincing evidence he rejects out of hand because it doesn't line up with his irrationally literal interpretation of the Bible?

I assert the sky is purple, and reject any evidence that contradicts my claim. Provide me convincing evidence the sky is not purple.