At this point in his apologetics career, Steve starts to wonder if this was such a good choice after all.

(July 9, 2014 at 9:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote:


Bravo, Esq.

Whenever I read Esquilax's posts, it makes me wish he was like Mr. McLuhan and my debates with believers could play out like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

(July 10, 2014 at 12:48 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: At this point in his apologetics career, Steve starts to wonder if this was such a good choice after all.

On the contrary, I hope Steve continues his apologetics career because if it turns out like mine did, he'll eventually join the right side of the good fight.

I cry when I read comments about Adam & Eve and Noah his his family being the source of humanity. How can supposedly intelligent educated American adults in the 21st Century be so F'ing stupid? Read the god damn fairy tale for once. It plainly states that there were numerous civilizations at the same time Adam & Eve were farting around in the Garden of Eden. Later on it states that the king of Tyre lived in the Garden of Eden until he got kicked out by the Emperor, probably for collaborating with the Egyptians. And after Noah got over his hangover his boys went to those other lands and built some cities. Adam & Eve and Noah may have been the original Jews but they had shit to do with the rest of humanity. For one thing the Bible Jews didn't consider non-Jews to be humans (men). The Jesus character referred to Gentiles as dogs and swine.

So please stop referring to Adam & Eve as if they were the original parents of all of humanity. The Bible doesn't make that claim. They are depicted as the ancestors of Jesus. And the Noah flood story is pure BS since Assyria (generally current day Iraq) existed with the Garden of Eden and after the flood. There's no record of it ever being under water to the top of the highest mountain. The flood was the Emperor's troops going through the land killing, raping, pillaging, and generally being bad asses and Noah was a collaborator.

Noah was a real guy?

(July 9, 2014 at 2:41 pm)SteveII Wrote: Since I am not a scientist and it is not one of my hobbies, I can't judge the content of some of the articles I read. Can you tell me why this article is scientifically wrong or does not match the facts?

http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

Talk to these guys. That's just from a quick Google search. If science really proved that the genetic variation of Earth's species suffered a massive bottleneck at exactly the same time just a few thousand years ago, we'd all be Christians today. Or Jews, at the very least.

(July 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: [quote='SteveII' pid='704318' dateline='1404929236']
Can you tell me what other types of things might exist that don't fall in these categories?

My point is that just because you don't know of other categories, doesn't mean that there are only two. This is the problem when you're building a positive case based on deeming things as "necessary" rather than using evidence; without evidence you have no basis for assuming that your "necessary" case is all encompassing.

I don't believe this is a matter of evidence. This is a matter of which philosophical position is more plausible. The existence if God will not be proved (nor will the contradictory) with evidence.

Quote:God would fall into the category of "in the necessity by its own nature". Any being worthy of the title of God would have to have the property of always existing.

Which still doesn't show us that the category "things that exist necessarily" actually contains a god in it. It could, in fact, be an empty category. Merely demonstrating that the category exists- which is what this premise was about to begin with- doesn't place a god inside of it.

You are right, but the argument is attempting to show that if everything other than this category is caused, then this category needs something in it.

Quote:Okay, are you saying that the universe has no cause or there are other possible causes for the universe? If your position is that there are other causes for the universe, don't you have the problem if just moving back the causal chain one step (or a million). Or do you think some sort of universe generator existed into the infinite past?


To answer your first question: I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying that I don't know how the universe began, or even if that phrase makes sense. The evidence is insufficient yet, though at the moment the strongest case is for a big bang, and I'm not willing to indulge hypothetical arguments about necessity or whatnot in order to conclude that there's a god. I'll do that when there's evidence for one.

This argument is not looking for evidence of God, it is laying out that the more plausible explanation of the cause of the universe is God.

Quote:I will point out, though, that your second question also applies to you too: if you think god is the cause, haven't you just pushed back the causal chain one step? What created god? And if you say that nothing created him, he exists necessarily, then clearly you don't think everything requires a cause, and is there any reason you can produce why the universe itself couldn't be the uncaused, necessarily existing thing?

I don't think everything has a cause (If I did, I misspoke). Obviously God fits into the necessarily uncaused category.

Quote:Mind you, this is all still attempting to apply a temporal framework of cause and effect to a pre-big bang model of the universe, where such concerns might not even apply. Maybe cause and effect run backwards before the big bang. Wouldn't it be surprising if, when our universe runs down to heat death it begins a Big Crunch that in turn spawns a universe where time runs in reverse, and that universe goes from big crunch all the way back to a big bang like state, where it expands back into a universe of normal time?

Is there any reason to believe in god over that symmetrical crunch/bang cycle?

Don't the cosmologist admit that eternal inflation theories cannot have occurred infinitly in the past, that they at some point must of had a beginning?

Quote:Since I am not a scientist and it is not one of my hobbies, I can't judge the content of some of the articles I read. Can you tell me why this article is scientifically wrong or does not match the facts?

http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

Yes mate, I can tell you exactly why that article is scientifically wrong, but you have to go to another page on the same website to see it: Here you go.

"Creation science" sites always have a page of required beliefs on them, which is a big strike we'll get to in a moment. Frankly, the entire thing is completely damning, but we'll focus on a single line that we see, verbatim, in a lot of the big hitters in this field:

creation.com statement of beliefs Wrote:By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Quote:Do those sound like the words of someone interested in the facts, to you? Or do they sound like the words of someone wanting to twist the facts to fit their conclusion?

The reason anything from creation.com is scientifically wrong is held in that statement of belief: the whole point of science is to follow the evidence, to test it rigorously, and use it to form tentative conclusions that will change the moment new evidence comes to light that contradicts them. Creation.com, on the other hand, proudly states from the outset that they'll ignore, twist, and redefine any evidence that doesn't fit with their predrawn conclusion, regardless of how much of it there is.

What you are looking at, with the above quote, is a group admitting that what they're doing is literally the opposite of science, and calling it science. That is why it's scientifically wrong.

Isn't your argument an example of the genetic fallacy? A scientist would have to lay out what was wrong with the argument or at least show that another theory fits all the data better.

(July 10, 2014 at 8:48 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: [quote='SteveII' pid='704318' dateline='1404929236']
Can you tell me what other types of things might exist that don't fall in these categories?

My point is that just because you don't know of other categories, doesn't mean that there are only two. This is the problem when you're building a positive case based on deeming things as "necessary" rather than using evidence; without evidence you have no basis for assuming that your "necessary" case is all encompassing.

I don't believe this is a matter of evidence. This is a matter of which philosophical position is more plausible. The existence if God will not be proved (nor will the contradictory) with evidence.

Quote:God would fall into the category of "in the necessity by its own nature". Any being worthy of the title of God would have to have the property of always existing.

Which still doesn't show us that the category "things that exist necessarily" actually contains a god in it. It could, in fact, be an empty category. Merely demonstrating that the category exists- which is what this premise was about to begin with- doesn't place a god inside of it.

You are right, but the argument is attempting to show that if everything other than this category is caused, then this category needs something in it.

Quote:Okay, are you saying that the universe has no cause or there are other possible causes for the universe? If your position is that there are other causes for the universe, don't you have the problem if just moving back the causal chain one step (or a million). Or do you think some sort of universe generator existed into the infinite past?


To answer your first question: I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying that I don't know how the universe began, or even if that phrase makes sense. The evidence is insufficient yet, though at the moment the strongest case is for a big bang, and I'm not willing to indulge hypothetical arguments about necessity or whatnot in order to conclude that there's a god. I'll do that when there's evidence for one.

This argument is not looking for evidence of God, it is laying out that the more plausible explanation of the cause of the universe is God.

Quote:I will point out, though, that your second question also applies to you too: if you think god is the cause, haven't you just pushed back the causal chain one step? What created god? And if you say that nothing created him, he exists necessarily, then clearly you don't think everything requires a cause, and is there any reason you can produce why the universe itself couldn't be the uncaused, necessarily existing thing?

I don't think everything has a cause (If I did, I misspoke). Obviously God fits into the necessarily uncaused category.

Quote:Mind you, this is all still attempting to apply a temporal framework of cause and effect to a pre-big bang model of the universe, where such concerns might not even apply. Maybe cause and effect run backwards before the big bang. Wouldn't it be surprising if, when our universe runs down to heat death it begins a Big Crunch that in turn spawns a universe where time runs in reverse, and that universe goes from big crunch all the way back to a big bang like state, where it expands back into a universe of normal time?

Is there any reason to believe in god over that symmetrical crunch/bang cycle?

Don't the cosmologist admit that eternal inflation theories cannot have occurred infinitly in the past, that they at some point must of had a beginning?

Quote:Since I am not a scientist and it is not one of my hobbies, I can't judge the content of some of the articles I read. Can you tell me why this article is scientifically wrong or does not match the facts?

http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

Yes mate, I can tell you exactly why that article is scientifically wrong, but you have to go to another page on the same website to see it: Here you go.

"Creation science" sites always have a page of required beliefs on them, which is a big strike we'll get to in a moment. Frankly, the entire thing is completely damning, but we'll focus on a single line that we see, verbatim, in a lot of the big hitters in this field:

creation.com statement of beliefs Wrote:By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Quote:Do those sound like the words of someone interested in the facts, to you? Or do they sound like the words of someone wanting to twist the facts to fit their conclusion?

The reason anything from creation.com is scientifically wrong is held in that statement of belief: the whole point of science is to follow the evidence, to test it rigorously, and use it to form tentative conclusions that will change the moment new evidence comes to light that contradicts them. Creation.com, on the other hand, proudly states from the outset that they'll ignore, twist, and redefine any evidence that doesn't fit with their predrawn conclusion, regardless of how much of it there is.

What you are looking at, with the above quote, is a group admitting that what they're doing is literally the opposite of science, and calling it science. That is why it's scientifically wrong.

Isn't your argument an example of the genetic fallacy? A scientist would have to lay out what was wrong with the argument or at least show that another theory fits all the data better.

Okay, just a quick note on your last point. Again, literally 30 seconds on google will show you how catastrophically flawed creation "science"'s understanding of genetics and geology and evolution and...basically every scientific field, is. One of the more obvious points is that the National Academy of Sciences states creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such, not to mention the massive distortions and appropriations of scientific language that creation "science" uses to sound more plausible (also, news flash, science and truth isn't even remotely about what's 'plausible', it's about what can be demonstrated). There is literally no part of creation "science" which resembles real science in any way, besides the white coats and some terminology, which they grossly misuse.

Additionally, it's not the burden of a skeptic or a real scientist to disprove any claim you make or article you might link. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the evidential support for his or her claims. Your final point about a scientist having to diagram and disprove your article or provide an alternate answer is just horseshit. That's not how science works. If someone makes a claim, you don't just believe it until someone offers another answer. You withold belief until the claimant has provided evidence for the claim. It's not our job or the job of scientists to debunk every insane or inane claim that anyone might make about reality. We're interested in what's demonstrable.

(July 10, 2014 at 8:48 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't believe this is a matter of evidence. This is a matter of which philosophical position is more plausible. The existence if God will not be proved (nor will the contradictory) with evidence.

Well, that's a problem, because you certainly can't prove the existence of god with anything else. Without evidence, some correspondence between what you're saying and reality, your claims are indistinguishable from fantasy.

Quote:You are right, but the argument is attempting to show that if everything other than this category is caused, then this category needs something in it.

Something, yes, and even then only if we share in the assumption that everything needs a cause, which isn't something you've demonstrated either. There's a vast gap between "something" and "god of the bible," that hasn't yet been bridged, and isn't even addressed by the argument from contingency.

Quote:This argument is not looking for evidence of God, it is laying out that the more plausible explanation of the cause of the universe is God.

"Plausible" doesn't equal true, and plausibility requires some calculation of probability, something that you cannot derive without observations of reality; in other words, evidence. This is my point exactly: you can't say something is more plausible than some other thing when you have extremely limited evidence of one thing, and no evidence at all of the other. In the case of the big bang and god, at least you have a fairly strong case for the existence of the big bang, and when it comes to straight plausibility everything is more plausible than a magical being that does anything. That's what I don't get: you're attempting to establish the plausibility of god when nothing in the real world would even lead you to believe that a god is possible, and the argument that you're using only stretches so far as "something."

Quote:I don't think everything has a cause (If I did, I misspoke). Obviously God fits into the necessarily uncaused category.

So then attempting to establish rules whereby the universe must have a cause is simple hypocrisy, since you've already accepted the idea that things don't need causes.

Quote:Don't the cosmologist admit that eternal inflation theories cannot have occurred infinitly in the past, that they at some point must of had a beginning?

I think they'd agree that the issue is unsettled, however. The only one making declarative statements about what must have happened at the beginning is you, here. I'm saying not to do that.

Quote:Isn't your argument an example of the genetic fallacy? A scientist would have to lay out what was wrong with the argument or at least show that another theory fits all the data better.

You asked why the article was scientifically wrong, and the simple answer to that question is because it's not scientific at all. You're asking me to evaluate an argument for which the conclusion will be the same thing whether the evidence supports the claim it's making or not, and I don't see much point in that. The problem is that these guys are dishonest, working under the pretense of investigation and evidence following when the truth is that what you're getting is twisting and omission of the facts to fit a predrawn conclusion.

My one question to you would be: do you really think you're going to get an objective, unvarnished look at the facts from a group that begins the conversation, at the foundation of their website, with a statement that "this is what's true, and everything that says otherwise is wrong."?

If I offered you a source that stated up front a presupposition that any evidence in favor of god would be disregarded out of hand, would you find that source compelling? Would you even look at it? And if you're going to tell me you'd fact check further, well, why not do the same with the source you gave us?

Because, let's be real clear: even a cursory search of mainstream scientific sources will demonstrate that you've been lied to by creation.com.

Regarding the flood, you all seem to think that is a linchpin argument against the existence of God and I have to prove it. I have no idea if the flood was regional , if the genealogy from Noah was just for the Jewish family tree, how many animals were there or how they dispersed. I will follow the science where it goes. However, there is a difference from following the science to accepting prevailing theories rooted in naturalism. If the YEC theories do not hold up against hard evidence, then they are wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are to ignore our senses, in fact we should examine our surroundings.

For example, I do not believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor) because the theories are not supported by science.

(July 10, 2014 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the flood, you all seem to think that is a linchpin argument against the existence of God and I have to prove it. I have no idea if the flood was regional , if the genealogy from Noah was just for the Jewish family tree, how many animals were there or how they dispersed. I will follow the science where it goes. However, there is a difference from following the science to accepting prevailing theories rooted in naturalism. If the YEC theories do not hold up against hard evidence, then they are wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are to ignore our senses, in fact we should examine our surroundings.

For example, I do not believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor) because the theories are not supported by science.