Disproving the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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

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.