Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
The TOC asserts that God is Supernatural and created all matter, energy and the laws of physics, and, being Supernatural, transcends all natural laws of physics.The problem is that 'Gods' theory of like begetting like and everything being created in a week 7000 years ago has been falsified.How so?
Are you serious? LOL Which law of thermodynamics would you like me to use to disprove the Bibles story of creation? Take your pick : )
Have you read up on the space-time stuff? It helps discussing stuff if we have a common starting point.
You are saying that TOC is untestable, unfalsifiable and makes no reliable predictions. I would agree with that assessment. It essentially makes it worthless as a theory.
The idea of the Creator of the laws of physics being confined to them is akin to a paradox.
You are absolutely correct, the idea of an omnipotent being is inherently a contradiction.
And I thought you were above using Strawmen.The idea of the Creator of the laws of physics being confined to them is akin to a paradox.
You are absolutely correct, the idea of an omnipotent being is inherently a contradiction.
2 x 2 =
Can an omnipotent God set limits that he can't violate? If he can't then he isn't omnipotent and if he can he isn't omnipotent. That makes God a contradiction.
The salient point though is that a theory based on a capricious and Omnipotent God that can do anything, makes the theory worthless because the rules can be changed at any time for any reason. None of the rules and predictions can be tested because they have no relevance to anything.
I don't see the laws of thermodynamics disproving that "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) At least the theory honestly posits a beyond-natural causer. Now if one wants to know what "Origins of all matter" theory does violate the laws of thermodynamics - check out the big bang which at Berkeley states that everything came from nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, that would be creating matter AND energy! (which the laws of thermodynamics say cannot happen.)
By the way, I was quite amused to see that you first said "..show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against." Then you said that 'Gods' theory ... has been falsified. Which is it? Is it unfalsifiable or falsified? [grin]
-Jesse
Been there, done that : )
There are many different theories of the big bang or even multiple big bangs. The primary evidence we have for the big bang is that the universe is expanding. Hence we extrapolate that at one time it was much smaller, anything beyond that is mostly speculation.
By the way, I was quite amused to see that you first said "..show how Creationism can be falsified and then it will count as a credible theory, for which evidence can be shown for and against." Then you said that 'Gods' theory ... has been falsified. Which is it? Is it unfalsifiable or falsified? [grin]
The problem is that there are about a dozen different creationism and God theories. Take your pick, some are falsifiable and some aren't, most aren't. If you are positing an uncreated creator not bound by the rules of this universe then how is it falsified?
Ahah! I agree with you that most of what that Berkeley page says IS mostly speculation! But the sad fact is that that's what's being taught in universities and schools across my country (USA) - including leading universities like Berkeley -- and it is being taught as well-known fact. If any other field were so full of speculation and was being dogmatically taught as fact, it'd be called religion (especially if it had moral implications.)
The problem is that there are about a dozen different creationism and God theories. Take your pick, some are falsifiable and some aren't, most aren't. If you are positing an uncreated creator not bound by the rules of this universe then how is it falsified?
haaaahahaha *wiggle* *squirm* *wheres the exit?* :-)
How about the oldest written historical account - Genesis - In the beginning, God, created the heavens and the earth, etc. (In 7 24-hour days, with a first man and a first woman, etc.) In other words, a literal reading of Genesis.(Hey. If any other old document of the age of Genesis were found it would be a significant historical document and would be worth studying and learning from!)
Now, about evolution. You said "The theory is that changes are natural and that selective pressures eliminated non beneficial changes."
Okay, I suspect you might be switching terms on me here. The theory you describe there is clearly demonstrated - I seen it it myself growing up on the farm! Some livestock that was born unable to eat or breath didn't live. But this doesn't address the other kind of evolution - the kind that I have not seen in real life - the kind which is taught as fact in schools across my country - the one that says that all life descended from one first cell. Call it the theory if macroevolution, or I prefer the theory of "All Speciation By Evolution." Or, herein, ASBE if you like. (Hey, come up with a better description and we can use that one!)
So is the theory of ASBE falsifiable? has all of its predictions been fulfilled? What are its predictions? If it is falsifiable, then that means it has a list of predictions that I can go read. Could you kindly point me to that?
Is a theory really still falsifiable if all of its predictions have been fulfilled? What if I put forth a theory but only include predictions for it which I can see are already fulfilled? Is it still falsifiable?
I think that you may be playing up falsifiability a little bit too much - or perhaps I'm just not understanding. For example, lets say I have a cat that lives in my house but one day I get home and the cat greets me in the front yard, and I notice that the front door is open, and then I remember not latching it when I left -- I can make a theory right away that says "I left the door unlatched, the cat pushed it open, and got out." Now I'm probably correct - and it's a valid and possible theory. But it's not falsifiable since I haven't made any predictions for which I do not know the answer. Does that mean that it's not a valid theory?
Thanks!
-Jesse
I have come to the conclusion that religion is a fools game, subjecting yourself to misguided men by the promise of eternal life. I would rather live my life my way, with my eyes wide open : ) Do I have any answers? I don't even know the questions, that is what makes it fun. I do know that life is too precious to waste on false promises.
The number one prediction was that life would have a common origin. That has not been falsified. Fossil records could have falsified it but if anything have confirmed it. The discovery of DNA could have falsified it but if anything has confirmed it.
The second prediction is that life would continue to differentiate and evolve, it isn't static. Again the fossil record and DNA discoveries have not falsified that theory and testing in the labs on microorganisms has demonstrated differentiation many times.
In many ways the Theory of Evolution is exactly like the theory of the Big Bang. We know that the Universe is expanding, just like we know that more complex organisms have evolved from less complex organisms. In neither case do we understand the origin or the mechanism by which it took place, or all of the processes at work even now. We have tools (theories) though that we have tested and that work well for their purpose, but our tool box is incomplete. As we add tools our understanding will become more complete. The two tools that I expect to see are emergent properties and the mechanism (force) that is life.
Religious belief can play a part in this just like it played a part in the Big Bang theory (Catholicism). I believe at its heart that Religion is the struggle to understand, exactly the same as Science. I think I have figured out why so many of the great scientists are Jews, it is their religious beliefs specifically aleph null. Christianity has the same background, it is just that we have to use the right tool for the job. If all you have is a hammer everything around you tends to look like a nail. There are other tools.
"I have come to the conclusion that religion is a fools game, subjecting yourself to misguided men by the promise of eternal life." [excerpt]You have come to the same conclusion that I have.
"I would rather live my life my way, with my eyes wide open : )" [excerpt]Possibly the number one reason people reject God is because the want to do things 'their way' with their 'eyes wide shut' towards God.
"Do I have any answers? I don't even know the questions, that is what makes it fun." [excerpt]Russian roulette?
"I do know that life is too precious to waste on false promises." [excerpt]I agree.
If you’re right that your God is the one to worship, then you’re good to go.
But, if you’re wrong, you’ve got one nasty surprise waiting for you.
Guillotine poker.
Or perhaps Russian roulette.If youre right that your God is the one to worship, then youre good to go.
But, if youre wrong, youve got one nasty surprise waiting for you.
Guillotine poker.
No but they often are. People of the book run the gamut from very intelligent and learned to deliberately ignorant.
Above you admitted that you don't know the questions (not to mention the answers), how then do you know that the premise that God does not exist is not false?
It primarily depends on the definition of 'God.' The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative. The most surprising realization came when I discovered that there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled. I had a fortune telling grandmother that did a better job than any prophecy I have ever read. I would think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future.
The bottom line though is that it is impossible to predict the future. If there was someone out there who could consistently and accurately predict the future I probably would believe in God : ) There isn't and has never been someone like that.
"No but they often are. People of the book run the gamut from very intelligent and learned to deliberately ignorant." [excerpt]That is true of everybody, Atheists included.
"It primarily depends on the definition of 'God.' The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative. The most surprising realization came when I discovered that there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled. I had a fortune telling grandmother that did a better job than any prophecy I have ever read. I would think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future." [excerpt]I agree that it is impossible to disprove a negative.
"The bottom line though is that it is impossible to predict the future. If there was someone out there who could consistently and accurately predict the future I probably would believe in God : ) There isn't and has never been someone like that." [excerpt]So if a man could predict the future you would probably believe in God?
No a prophecy is definitive. It is a prediction that can be falsified. It either is or isn't, if it isn't it is falsified. What is so hard about that to understand?
Just because we might 'think that the primary purpose of God would be to predict the future', does not make it true.
True, why don't you define God so that we can quit going around in circles?
So if a man could predict the future you would probably believe in God? What about the prophets recorded in the bible?
Aren't prophets men? Isn't that how God speaks to man, through Prophets? Can you provide a single, clear definitive prophecy that has come to pass? Wouldn't that be a prerequisite for a prophet?
Are you proving the nonexistence of future prophets sent by God?
Based on the nonexistence of prophets in the past, yes.
No big deal, only one person.
Not due to any scientific argument, evidence, logic, or skills, but sealed by the following quote:
"Darwins theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed."
Prove to me that that quote is sarcasm and I'll think it over.
The statement to which you replied concerns the existance of 'clear prophecies that have been fulfilled'."I agree that it is impossible to"No a prophecy is definitive. It is a prediction that can be falsified. It either is or isn't, if it isn't it is falsified. What is so hard about that to understand?"disproveprove a negative. So the statement 'there are no clear prophecies that have been fulfilled' seems to be the logical fallacy of proving a negative."
"True, why don't you define God so that we can quit going around in circles?"I'm not the one going around in circles.
"Aren't prophets men? Isn't that how God speaks to man, through Prophets? Can you provide a single, clear definitive prophecy that has come to pass? Wouldn't that be a prerequisite for a prophet?"The bible is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled, some of them even recently.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Matthew 12:39-40
Can you prove that, because you have never seen me perform Handel's Messiah, I never will?Are you proving the nonexistence of future prophets sent by God?Based on the nonexistence of prophets in the past, yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.