Then start by not assuming the truth of your idea. :up:
Irrational openers mean you're excluded from a scientific discussion.
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Then start by not assuming the truth of your idea. :up:
Irrational openers mean you're excluded from a scientific discussion.
But you rationally cannot deny that you exist, yes?
In other words, it is true that you exist, right?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Sure.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Might want to look in the mirror on that one Stripey. :up:
Evolution isn't irrational. And I'm not convinced you know what science is.
So then can you now confidently say that truth exists?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Exodus 20:11 is metaphorical (i.e. not literal). That's basically your proposition, you're saying that perhaps the proposition that Exodus 20:11's "six days" is metaphorical in some way, is a fact. I'm agreeing with you, "Perhaps." Also, perhaps its direct opposite is a fact instead. Perhaps Exodus 20:11 is literally signifying, denoting, and referring to six literal days, the same 'days' that we still intend today when we write or say the word 'days.'
I say that perhaps Exodus 20:11 is literally true, and not just metaphorically true; on the question of whether the universe is over 13 billion years old; you say yes it is a fact, and I say no is a possibility.
Today the Church celebrates the Lord's death, burial, and Resurrection (1Co15:3-4) once a week. It points to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, through celebrating what Christ did, every week, at Mass.
Not really. I know I remember far longer than two seconds ago, as you do too. It's as certain as two and two is four. Solipsistic philosophy is prima facie balderdash. And extreme skepticism was already weighed by Descartes, and it was found wanting.
Furthermore, all my argument does is establish that the logical space exists for my proposition to be a fact. It does not prove it. It does prove that it is not provable without something akin to a time machine. Perhaps with the new telescope replacing the Hubble, we are not far from something akin to a time machine, as this new device hopefully can outperform Hubble by at least a factor of three, and will show us the actual beginning, and we will see and know which proposition is correct.
Not if your proposition above, that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is fictional. 'Point is clear in such case. Namely that it's the fact of the matter.
Science provides useful predictions regardless of which of our directly opposing propositions is fictional, and which is the fact. Tell me you understand that? Tell me that you understand that my position is Not Nihilism. If it really took God six days to make everything, that doesn't somehow mean nothing matters anymore. I don't even understand how ppl can come to such a bizarre and irrational conclusion but they do and have.
You could quote me specifically saying that to reject my ideas is to reject science.
I can quote you saying exactly that.
Notice how I never said anything of the sort?
It's the process of eliminating rational ideas by considering the evidence.
We cannot go through that process until you present a sensible, testable and falsifiable idea.
Hint: "Change" is not something anyone in their right mind s going to challenge.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Yes.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Sigh, you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I think exodus is not necessarily referring to a literal event, not that the Exodus text itself is metaphorical. It's making a plain statement about how to count the weeks. But it doesn't HAVE to be referring to a 100% literal historical event to make sense. Much like our modern reference to sunset and sunrise. We know the sun isn't literally setting or rising, but we often refer to that symbolic phrase in other contexts. Six days is a way of making the creation story simple and easy to remember for an oral culture. It's not a science textbook or a detailed news report. Mind you my church is going through the book of Genesis currently and just said exactly that from the pulpit. And no it's not a liberal church that rejects miracles or the resurrection.
How do you know that those memories aren't fabricated then if you think the universe was created with the appearance of age. Did Adam and eve have belly buttons and were they able to speak after creation? Fabricated memories then. Once you go down this particular road there's no guardrails.
If creation was actually over six days but the universe looks and acts like it's 13 billion years old, why would six days be anything more than symbolic in that case anyway?
Science acts based on the evidence available so, if what you're proposing were true it wouldn't matter as far as science is concerned.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Rejecting biological evolution is rejecting science.
I asked you why the Chestnut fungal disease killed almost all of the North American trees but not those from China. You never even attempted an answer. Science provides an easy answer, which has been confirmed in lots of other situations. If your ideas are also scientific and testable why can't you explain such a simple event?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Yes. I do hope you have a point to get to that doesn't take another 10 posts.
Lon
Well-known member
This is confirmation bias. Read rather, here. While drinking milk or other lactose rich items, taking it slowly can work against the assertion, it is rather obvious that dairy farmers and communities don't 'lose' the lactose enzyme, not because of genetic specialty, but because of environmental influence as Stripe suggests.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Um no not at all. Now there is an interplay, people with weaker lactose tolerance will sometimes end up with the gene turned off if they stop drinking milk for a while. But people without the trait at all won't be able to drink milk as an adult pretty much at all.
Also from your own reference:
| Dr. Savaiano: “About three-quarters of the world’s population has the potential for lactose intolerance, and about one-fourth of the U.S. population. Lactose intolerance is a genetic trait – it’s not an environmental trait. It’s a trait that is actually recessive, but most common among the world’s population.” |
Good.
See if you can follow my line of reasoning below, then, and how it relates to your (in-passing) irrational statement that the universe could have been created moments ago and we wouldn't know it, which causes people to fundamentally doubt their own and God's existence, which causes all sorts of mental problems.
Apologies. I'll get to the point.
----
| - I never doubt that I exist. - I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist. - I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence. - I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist. - I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence. - I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy. - Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists. - Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational. - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause. - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. - I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself. - And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever. - And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever. - And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me. - And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal. - And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness. - And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive. - So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal. - And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God". - And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist. - And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational. - And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love. - And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good. - So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. - And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived. - And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us. - And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false. - Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life. |
Nope. It's just a theory.
When you're ready for a rational discussion over the evidence, let us know. :up:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Hmm I think you misinterpreted part of that discussion. My point wasn't that people would necessarily doubt any of those things, it's just if the universe's appearance is perfectly false, there's not really a good way to know that. And even if we knew it for sure, it wouldn't be useful to us scientifically. Because science studies the evidence that's left behind and if all the evidence is false, either science breaks down entirely or you just have to go with the evidence you have.
Now, wrt to your line of logic, it's good at the beginning but I think you make several logical leaps towards the end that aren't fully supported. I agree with your conclusions but I doubt they'd be convincing to an atheist (especially the bit about God being good). I think the problem comes in the atheist definition of good . . but I digress.
I agree with the concept of the uncaused cause because the alternative is an actually infinite series of causes, which doesn't really make any sense. Or at least is no better than an uncaused cause.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I keep posting it and you keep ignoring it. :idunno:
Lon
Well-known member
And the same article also says 1) "potential"-ly. Not actual. 2) Further, the other link said that it is certain that many can increase their tolerance.
Genetics come into play, Stripe wouldn't say they don't. What he would say, however, is that such is consequential of lifestyle and environment ELSE dairy communities wouldn't continue with a high tolerance. That's why I believe you've bought into confirmation bias rather than science. Confirmation bias is different than good science.
That is simply the natural consequence of that belief.
Sure there is.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, then the one religion that claims exclusivity for its Founder raising Himself from the dead is false, and since that Founder is also the Creator of the universe, it renders Him a liar, and that leads to all sorts of problems that I don't have the time nor space to go into here, not the least of which being that God wouldn't be trustworthy.
Sure it would.
If we knew that the universe has existed, and that how long it has existed is consistent with the Bible, then it tells us all sorts of things about the Creator.
Science breaks down when you try to use the "moments-old universe" as your base model.
Yet science is upheld when using Biblical model of creation.
Whoops, I think I forgot to add the link to where I quoted that from...
*checks*
Yup.
Sorry about that.
Here's the link:
https://kgov.com/on-doubt
Which parts, specifically? Maybe I can close the gaps, as it were...
See the comments here:
https://santitafarella.wordpress.co...-and-mitt-romney-are-not-conservative-enough/
Which brings us to another question:
Is there such thing as absolute right and wrong?
If not, then there is no such thing as good.