Denial of God

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not bad for a start.

3. Let me start off by saying one thing. I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum. It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both must be more true than either theory alone.
they are shrouded by the veil of time between then and now.

That's for starters. 🙂

3. Let me start off by saying one thing. I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either
Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum. It's clear to me that any serious thought
on the matter would conclude that a combination of both must be more true than either theory alone.

Ok, well let me start of by saying that all the... how did you put it... 'stupid gits' on this forum who are claiming that there
is an choice between evolution OR creationism are theists (ie your side) trying to claim that they are mutually exclusive and
thus because the bible is infallible therefore creationism is wrong... or something.

It is obviously possible for a suitably omnipotent deity to create the universe any way (that is logically possible) that it
wants to and that could certainly include a universe where evolution happens but every so often they give the process
a poke to send it in a particular desired direction...

However, there is absolutely no evidence for this and absolutely no reason to believe it.

Evolution is a fact (which as unlike many theists here you are not actually insane you accept) and is known to happen.

Evolution (along with a few other related processes) is more than capable of explaining everything we observe.

[EDIT: reading back I just wanted to make clear here that I mean everything we observe about the diversity of life and
how it came to be. Obviously evolution doesn't explain how my computer works or how stars form. However you should know
what I mean here.]

Nothing else is needed.

Thus we (according to you) have two competing hypotheses.

1. Evolution.

2. Evolution + God.

Both hypothesis include the presently observed facts in their 'predictions' of what reality would look like.

However hypothesis 1 predicts a narrower range of possibilities than hypothesis 2.

This makes it better than hypothesis 2.

Also.

The probability of A independent of B, MUST be equal to or greater than the probability of A AND B.

Thus the probability of Evolution must be greater or equal to (a priori) the probability of Evolution AND god.

So your statement that a combination MUST be 'more true' is nonsense.

Evolution is supported by evidence, if you want to add in god that addition MUST also be supported by evidence.

God currently not only has no evidence but has evidence against him/her/it/they.

Have a look at these links for more details on what I am talking about.

YouTube

YouTube

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes

1. Because of my belief in evolution (as well as big bang theory and most cosmological theories) as God's tool to
bring about the creation of the universe and all that is in it, I see no choice but to believe that the tale of Adam & Eve is
either allegorical or was an instance of God stepping in once the evolution of Man was complete. I still believe in the
essence of the story, being Satan tempting Man into falling from Grace into Sin.

But why do you believe that? (oh yes, of course, faith... stupid question)

Ok interesting side note...

If you think we evolved naturally... do you think god knew that we would evolve before hand or do you think that god
directed/diverted evolution along the way? (evolution being an undirected blind process which has no goals or direction)

If you believe god know we would evolve from the time he created the universe (and/or before) then doesn't that pretty
much mean that this is a purely deterministic universe? (otherwise the odds of evolution producing us are ridiculously
impossibly high)

In which case god designed the universe knowing everything that would happen in it and as the creator with a choice
over how he created it he is thus responsible for everything that has or will ever happen. (ie no free will of any kind as
god determined everything that would happened at the moment he created the universe)

And doesn't that completely destroy the basis of your religion?

2. I think the Flood is a combination of stories from several civilizations of an event which was a life changing event
for many in the actual region affected by the flood, i.e. many researchers believe the event was the flooding of the Black
Sea basin from the Bosphorus once sea levels had risen after the melting of glaciers formed during the last ice age.

Floods happen, sea levels change, tsunamis wash in... People make up myths and stories about them that get altered
and embellished over time... This is so trivially and obviously true that it shouldn't require any significant discussion...

Doesn't it trouble you that you are on the side of the people (faith based believers) for whom this isn't obvious and
even after significant discussions they still don't get it?

How this ties in with God dealing with the problem of the Nephilim I haven't quite worked out yet.

And you were doing so well...

What problem?

With the What?

What makes you think that "Nephilim" existed, and were a problem? (oh yes, faith again.... tell me, how do you decide what
you believe based on faith and what you believe based on evidence? Is it that you just believe whatever you want and use
evidence when it agrees with you and fall back on faith when it doesn't?)

So while you may label these as "pure" or "utter" nonsense, I see these as having at least some basis in reality.
The main problem seems to be they are shrouded by the veil of time between then and now.

There is a book of short stories by one of my favourite authors (Ian M. Banks) called "The State of the Art".
The titular story features Banks' fictional utopian space fearing society discovering and visiting Earth (in secret) in 1977.
I wont go into details about the story, but it features the aliens (altered to pass for humans although they are pretty close
to start with) visiting various real places on the Earth and witnessing and talking about real events that really happened in
1977~8 (as they visit undetected in secret they don't alter events).
At one point they make a copy of the 'about to be released' film Star Wars, which they watch before it comes out in the cinemas
and think is hilarious.

The fact that the story features realistic characters with believable feelings visiting real places and talking about real events doesn't
make the story any less 'pure or utter nonsense'. Albeit enjoyable nonsense.


The fact that real floods do and have happened and that the flood myths in the bible will have been sparked by these floods does
not mean that the stories are any less 'pure and utter nonsense'.

The fact that lightning happens does not make stories about Thor the thunder god anything but fairy tales.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not bad for a start.

3. Let me start off by saying one thing. I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum. It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both must be more true than either theory alone. ...[text shortened]... they are shrouded by the veil of time between then and now.

That's for starters. 🙂

"It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both (evolution and Creationism) must be more true than either theory alone."

Then here's some serious thought, with all due respect for your moderate approach to this discussion.

The problem here is that Creationism as it is almost exclusively propounded and defended on this forum is a religious belief, Young Earth Biblical Creationism, which imposes a complete barrier preventing any combination with scientific evolution theory. Further, as a generality I believe is true; scientific theories and religious beliefs do not combine well, as any combination that has as one part of it, a scientific theory, calls for the other "partner" to be open to criticism that is based on the same basic principles of scientific inquiry that govern the theory. Evidence-based conclusions, demonstrated and reproducible predictive power, coherence with existing scientific theory, and parsimony are four such principles.

So unless you can come up with a way that a religious belief system and a scientific theory can be combined in a way that satisfies the demands of each discipline, I think your criticism will not lead to a reconciliation of the two.

Originally posted by JS357
"It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both (evolution and Creationism) must be more true than either theory alone."

Then here's some serious thought, with all due respect for your moderate approach to this discussion.

The problem here is that Creationism as it is almost exclusively propounded and d ...[text shortened]... s of each discipline, I think your criticism will not lead to a reconciliation of the two.

Which brings you back to these questions...

"... How do you decide what you believe based on faith and what you believe based on evidence?
Is it that you just believe whatever you want and use evidence when it agrees with you and fall back on faith when it doesn't?"

Originally posted by googlefudge
Which brings you back to these questions...

"... How do you decide what you believe based on faith and what you believe based on evidence?
Is it that you just believe whatever you want and use evidence when it agrees with you and fall back on faith when it doesn't?"

Yes, that is the question, although I might interpret it with this twist:

The phrase "decide what you believe based on (faith or evidence)" can mean:

1. Decide which to rely on in the belief formation process.

or

2. Decide which to rely on to justify or defend a belief regardless of how we came to have it.

The first alternative above calls for greater self-discipline. I believe we come to have our beliefs using processes we do not necessarily understand or which are partly faith, partly evidence. For example, listening to a person we innately trust (like a parent, at least early in life) may lead us to believe what they say based on faith in their authority, even though what they say might also be evidence-based. So a person might come to belief in, say, evolution theory, partly due to his faith in some authority on the subject. And it can be some of each.

Also, I see many theists here attack certain hypotheses if evolution by bringing up alleged scientific counterevidence, when their belief in creation is faith based. This is an example of using one process to justify a belief held because of the other process.

But my bottom line question is, do we really, independently and freely, choose the processes we use to arrive at our beliefs, and is the choice always either/or?

Edit: the above is not meant to dispute what you say. I don't dispute it.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes, that is the question, although I might interpret it with this twist:

The phrase "decide what you believe based on (faith or evidence)" can mean:

1. Decide which to rely on in the belief formation process.

or

2. Decide which to rely on to justify or defend a belief regardless of how we came to have it.

The first ...[text shortened]... lways either/or?

Edit: the above is not meant to dispute what you say. I don't dispute it.

Yes, indeed. And I will get to your question later because it's an interesting one.

However there is one thing I will quibble with...

I think you are using two different meanings of the word faith where I was using only one.

I use faith on this site (unless specified otherwise) to only mean one thing...
(something like this)

"belief without justifying evidence, and/or despite evidence to the contrary."

This could be short-handed as blind faith.



However you also seemed to me to be using faith as a synonym for trust.

However to me trust is not the same thing as faith.

Trust can be built up or lost, it can be earned. Trust can be based on evidence and experience.

I can (for example) have 80% trust in a person/thing based on my experience of their reliability.

Saying that I trust my car wont break down today is not the same as having faith that a god exists.


Also trusting that your school teacher is telling you accurate true information is also not the same as
having faith in the existence of a god.
(although you could have faith in your schoolteacher but it looks to me that what you meant was what I
would term trust rather than faith)


I bring this up because this is an instance where the distinction between trust and faith is important.
And efforts need to be made not to confuse or conflate the two.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, indeed. And I will get to your question later because it's an interesting one.

However there is one thing I will quibble with...

I think you are using two different meanings of the word faith where I was using only one.

I use faith on this site (unless specified otherwise) to only mean one thing...
(something like this)

"belief withou rust and faith is important.
And efforts need to be made not to confuse or conflate the two.

OK it's good to disclose our ways of using these words.

I use faith on this site (unless specified otherwise) to only mean one thing...
(something like this)

"belief without justifying evidence, and/or despite evidence to the contrary."

This could be short-handed as blind faith.

I do believe my example, the child and the parent, satisfies the first part, belief without justifying evidence, but does not really satisfy the second part The baby's trust is not based on his/her reasoned examination of justifying evidence, at least as adults would do it, but is based on "evidence" of the parent's presence as a reliable nurturer and caretaker. And the child probably has no access to evidence that would make his parent's words unreliable.

So, point taken. I will still stand behind the gist of my point concerning the difficulty/impossibility of combining scientific evolution theory and YEC Creationism. The gist is that this difficulty comes from more than just differences in alleged evidence, it comes from each of them refusing to be judged against the other's criteria of truth. (Edit: ...or inability to agree on a common set of criteria.)

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not bad for a start.

3. Let me start off by saying one thing. I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum. It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both must be more true than either theory alone. ...[text shortened]... they are shrouded by the veil of time between then and now.

That's for starters. 🙂

One thing you said, 'now that the evolution of man is complete'. The problem there is evolution of man and every other animal on the planet goes on, there is no complete of anything living on Earth.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not bad for a start.

3. Let me start off by saying one thing. I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum. It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both must be more true than either theory alone. ...[text shortened]... they are shrouded by the veil of time between then and now.

That's for starters. 🙂

I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum.

I got this far and didn't bother reading the rest Suzianne, insulting me has that effect.