Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…201202204206207…232

Comments

  • #6092
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    I am not a scientist -conventional or otherwise so I have to ask you what do you mean by the above ?
    I mean that I have an open mind on the age of the Earth, as a Conventional Scientist.


  • #6093
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Jc, what do yiu mean by conventional scientist.

    You seem very sure of what it is and isn't yet others on here don't seem ro recognise it.

    Also, again, please explain what non conventional science evidence has been used to prove the supernatural or at least what methods it is using


  • #6094
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    It was once thought that the Sun being the centre of the Universe was laughable.
    Um, thinking the sun is the centre of the universe is laughable JC. It isn't that it was once thought to be laughable, it is currently thought laughable, like creation "science".

    MrP


  • #6095
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    I mean that I have an open mind on the age of the Earth, as a Conventional Scientist.

    With what ever evidence is available to you right now do you believe it is less than 6000 years old ?


  • #6096
    extrapolate
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭extrapolate


    A literal reading of the Bible would give that age, or thereabouts. That is enough, and far more superior, evidence for a lot of Bible believing Christians.

    Doesn't mean to say it is popular opinion amongst the general population in 2017, just showing the reasoning behind the belief.


  • Advertisement
  • #6097
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ... so, at the end of all that, ... are you saying that conventional science does or does not rule out the scientific investigation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena?
    I'm not saying either of those things. I'm asking how you would test a hypothesis, and you're refusing to answer the question until I answer a question that is, as far as I can see, unrelated.

    You're also still talking about "conventional science", which still implies the validity of "alternative science", which is approximately as true as the validity of "alternative facts".
    ... with the possible exception of the spontaneous generation and evolution of life ... apparently.
    No, without exception.


  • #6098
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Um, thinking the sun is the centre of the universe is laughable JC. It isn't that it was once thought to be laughable, it is currently thought laughable, like creation "science".

    MrP
    ... so you're a geocenterist then Mr P?


  • #6099
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Jc, what do yiu mean by conventional scientist.

    You seem very sure of what it is and isn't yet others on here don't seem ro recognise it.

    Also, again, please explain what non conventional science evidence has been used to prove the supernatural or at least what methods it is using
    A conventional scientist is a conventionally qualified working scientist utilising the currently agreed conventional scientific protocols and principles, including the ban on scientifically investigating hypotheses involving supernatural causation of physical phenomena. Its basically what we call 'a scientist' today.


  • #6100
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not saying either of those things. I'm asking how you would test a hypothesis, and you're refusing to answer the question until I answer a question that is, as far as I can see, unrelated.

    You're also still talking about "conventional science", which still implies the validity of "alternative science", which is approximately as true as the validity of "alternative facts". No, without exception.
    Yes, I want agreed clarity on what conventional science does and does not do before proceeding to look at alternative approaches to knowledge gathering.

    Otherwise, we will end up with 'baiting and swtching' whereby when I say what alternative methods of research can do ... you guys will switch back arguing that conventional science could do this ... but doesn't because it doesn't consider it to be worthwhile or some such 'hand waving' argument.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, without exception.
    ... or so they say ... but when anybody does question the spontaneous generation and evolution of life within science ... it can result in career suicide ... and a very close scrutiny and/or banning of any scientific papers they may author.


  • #6101
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, I want agreed clarity on what conventional science does and does not do before proceeding to look at alternative approaches to knowledge gathering.
    OK, I'll take a brief sally down the rabbit hole with you. Before agreeing whether or not science allows for the investigation of the supernatural, can you defined "supernatural" for me?
    Otherwise, we will end up with 'baiting and swtching' whereby when I say what alternative methods of research can do ... you guys will switch back arguing that conventional science could do this ... but doesn't because it doesn't consider it to be worthwhile or some such 'hand waving' argument.
    The problem with "alternative methods of research" is that there needs to be a very compelling reason to use them instead of conventional methods, because conventional methods work (bitches).

    So, if conventional methods can test the hypothesis in question, please explain how. If not, please explain why not. And if alternative methods are required, please explain them.
    ... or so they say ... but when anybody does question the spontaneous generation and evolution of life within science ... it can result in career suicide ... and a very close scrutiny and/or banning of any scientific papers they may author.
    It's very hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who descends into conspiracy theories rather than deign to explain what they're talking about.


  • Advertisement
  • #6102
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, I'll take a brief sally down the rabbit hole with you. Before agreeing whether or not science allows for the investigation of the supernatural, can you defined "supernatural" for me?
    Supernatural causes are causes outside the natural world ... such as the hypothesis that God created life.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The problem with "alternative methods of research" is that there needs to be a very compelling reason to use them instead of conventional methods, because conventional methods work (bitches).
    ... nobody is asking for conventional scientific methods to be abandoned ... I'm asking if conventional science allows conventional scientific methods to be used to evaluate hypothesised supernatural causes for physical phenomena?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's very hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who descends into conspiracy theories rather than deign to explain what they're talking about.
    Unfortunately it isn't a conspiracy ... it is done in plain sight ... to anybody who has the temerity to attempt to publish research which even hints at the possibility of a supernatural cause.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

    ... and closer to home, public funds will be cut to anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of the Spontaneous Evolution 'god'.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design

    Quote:-
    Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
    ... so ... no new scientific ideas allowed ... must be in line with historical evidence and explantions.

    ... and no, this isn't some church rule trying to confine theological ideas to the Middle Ages ... its the requirement for science education in UK schools.


  • #6103
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    What proof of supernatural do we have to date?


  • #6104
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    What proof of supernatural do we have to date?
    We have no conventional scientific proof ... because looking for such proof isn't allowed by conventional science.
    ... and this has even been asserted and accepted in a court of law
    quote:-

    Judge Jones wrote this in his decision on the Dover Trial:

    …we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science…ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation…While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science…This rigorous attachment to ‘natural’ explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention.

    ... so stating that there is no scientific proof for God ... while preventing the research required for such proof is disingenuous, to say the least!!!!

    Meanwhile, some German computer scientists appear to have evaded the rule preventing the scientific evaluation of evidence for God ... and proven a mathematical theorm that provides mathematical proof that God exists ... I will keep a watching brief on how they get on with this one ... once the greater scientific community start to realise that 'the game could be up' ... because God has (again) been mathematically proven to exist.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

    ... amazingly both the religious and secular media has been remarkably silent on this breakthrough ... and the spinning away from the proof for God and towards the computer dimensions to the work has started ... why am I not surprised???


  • #6105
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Supernatural causes are causes outside the natural world ... such as the hypothesis that God created life.
    So how can conventional science test that hypothesis?
    ... nobody is asking for conventional scientific methods to be abandoned ... I'm asking if conventional science allows conventional scientific methods to be used to evaluate hypothesised supernatural causes for physical phenomena?
    I really don't see the point in all this silly talk about what's allowed, and what's not allowed. I'm not the science police; I'm not even a scientist. I asked a simple question (several times now): how would you test the hypothesis that God created life?

    You've danced around the question in a way that has become utterly indistinguishable from someone who doesn't have an answer to it. My null hypothesis, as of this moment, is that your hypothesis can't be tested. The ball is in your court: disprove my null hypothesis.

    Or don't. I don't care. If you choose not to support your hypothesis, that's to all intents and purposes the same thing as admitting that it's unsupportable.

    I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole. Either answer the question, or don't. If you answer it, the conversation can continue. If you don't, I'm taking it as an admission that you can't.


  • #6106
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So how can conventional science test that hypothesis? I really don't see the point in all this silly talk about what's allowed, and what's not allowed. I'm not the science police; I'm not even a scientist. I asked a simple question (several times now): how would you test the hypothesis that God created life?

    You've danced around the question in a way that has become utterly indistinguishable from someone who doesn't have an answer to it. My null hypothesis, as of this moment, is that your hypothesis can't be tested. The ball is in your court: disprove my null hypothesis.

    Or don't. I don't care. If you choose not to support your hypothesis, that's to all intents and purposes the same thing as admitting that it's unsupportable.

    I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole. Either answer the question, or don't. If you answer it, the conversation can continue. If you don't, I'm taking it as an admission that you can't.
    We have already tested the hypothesis using work first pioneered by Intelligent Design scientists. The conventional science community then promptly turned around and pointed out that work wasn't scientifically valid, not because of any inherent evidential or logical flaw ... but simply because supernatural causes are not allowed to be investigated by science.
    ... a great 'catch 22' in favour of indefinitely preventing the scientific proof of God's existence.

    So here we have valid scientific proof produced by eminent conventionally qualified scientists ... but it is being denied scientific status on the convenient self-imposed technicality that science doesn't allow supernatural causes (including any possible actions of God) to be scientifically investigated.

    Great, I suppose, if you are an Atheist ... and are allowed to get away with this obvious self-serving limitation imposed on science.

    Not so good, if you have valid scientific proof that God exists and are prevented from scientific peer review and publication, because of an Atheist-friendly rule within the heart of science.


  • #6107
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    We have already tested the hypothesis using work first pioneered by Intelligent Design scientists. The conventional science community then promptly turned around and pointed out that work wasn't scientifically valid, not because of any inherent evidential or logical flaw ... but simply because supernatural causes are not allowed to be investigated by science.
    ... a great 'catch 22' in favour of indefinitely preventing the scientific proof of God's existence.

    So here we have valid scientific proof produced by eminent conventionally qualified scientists ... but it is being denied scientific status on the convenient self-imposed technicality that science doesn't allow supernatural causes (including any possible actions of God) to be scientifically investigated.

    'Supernatural' definition: Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

    Ergo, science cannot and should not investigate "supernatural causes".


  • #6108
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    We have already tested the hypothesis using work first pioneered by Intelligent Design scientists. The conventional science community then promptly turned around and pointed out that work wasn't scientifically valid, not because of any inherent evidential or logical flaw ... but simply because supernatural causes are not allowed to be investigated by science.
    ... a great 'catch 22' in favour of indefinitely preventing the scientific proof of God's existence.

    It is simply not true that you are not allowed to investigate supernatural causes, the catch with those is, that those are outside of the realm of being able to be tested and so cannot be tested. There is a whole paper about it, that it can be done. See here: http://www.naturalism.org/sites/naturalism.org/files/Can%20Science%20Test%20Supernatural%20Worldviews%20Final%20Author%20Copy%20(Fishman%202007).pdf


    quote from the paper
    “Indeed, in science no hypothesis, regardless of whether it concerns ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ phenomena, can be definitively proven or disproven. The ultimate aim of science is to explain the world by means of models that are more or less supported by the available evidence. As new evidence may arise that conflicts with our currently accepted models, no scientific hypothesis or theory can be proven with certainty or be immune from potential falsification. Scientific theories and hypotheses are defeasible. Nonetheless, a rough probability value, perhaps assessed via the Bayesian framework outlined above, can still be placed on a hypothesis, such that the hypothesis can be ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’ beyond a reasonable doubt (a familiar example being the innocence or guilt of a defendant in a court of law).”
    /unquote

    Science doesn’t “prove” or “disprove” anything. It simply renders hypothesis more or less plausible. With this the asked hypothesis can be tested. An example is given, like thunder and lightning were seen as supernatural, but were tested by science and found to be caused by natural causes.
    J C wrote: »
    So here we have valid scientific proof produced by eminent conventionally qualified scientists ... but it is being denied scientific status on the convenient self-imposed technicality that science doesn't allow supernatural causes (including any possible actions of God) to be scientifically investigated.
    Great, I suppose, if you are an Atheist ... and are allowed to get away with this obvious self-serving limitation imposed on science.

    So if those scientists found a way to create a valid scientific proof for a supernatural cause, I would be highly interested to read it.


  • #6109
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    'Supernatural' definition: Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

    Ergo, science cannot and should not investigate "supernatural causes".
    Game, set and match ... to exclusively atheist ideas within science ... and a permanent ban on any scientific evaluation of the existence of God.

    Thanks for confirming what I have been saying, Professor Moriarty.


  • #6110
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Game, set and match ... to exclusively atheist ideas within science ... and a permanent ban on any scientific evaluation of the existence of God.

    Thanks for confirming what I have been saying, Professor Moriarty.

    Agreed and you're welcome. 'God' is supernatural so by definition is beyond scientific investigation. Quod erat demonstrandum.


  • #6111
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    So if those scientists found a way to create a valid scientific proof for a supernatural cause, I would be highly interested to read it.
    You might well be very interested in reading it ... but, you see, it can never be scientifically published, for you to read it because of the rule that supernatural causes cannot be scientifically investigated ... see Professor Moriarty's helpful confirmation of this fact above.

    ... so you will never have your belief that God doesn't exist upset by any scientific hypothesis that He does ... because of this rule placed at the heart of science by no doubt, a very considerate and sensitive atheist ... to prevent any palpatations that a scientific proof that God exists could cause scientists or the general public.


  • Advertisement
  • #6112
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »

    Not so good, if you have valid scientific proof that God exists and are prevented from scientific peer review and publication, because of an Atheist-friendly rule within the heart of science.


    If this proof is available why not show us ?


  • #6113
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    If this proof is available why not show us ?
    There is no point, as it would be asked if it went through (conventional scientific) peer review ... and as the the answer has to be 'no' it can be dismissed as 'unscientific'.

    ... but like all ideas of its time ... scientific proof that God exists is seeping throught the cracks ... the German mathematical proof for God's existence, being an example.


  • #6114
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    You might well be very interested in reading it ... but, you see, it can never be scientifically published, for you to read it because of the rule that supernatural causes cannot be scientifically investigated ... see Professor Moriarty's helpful confirmation of this fact above.

    ... so you will never have your belief that God doesn't exist upset by any scientific hypothesis that He does ... because of this rule placed at the heart of science by no doubt, a very considerate and sensitive atheist ... to prevent any palpatations that a scientific proof that God exists could cause scientists or the general public.

    Logic placed this rule at the heart of science, not an atheist.


  • #6115
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    There is no point, as it would be asked if it went through (conventional scientific) peer review ... and as the the answer has to be 'no' it can be dismissed as 'unscientific'.

    Most of us are not scientists, so really doesn't matter. But the term "creationist" scientist already made me giggle. :pac:

    And Gödel's theorem has a big problem, as one of the axioms basically states that there is a god, so there has to be a god. Where it is very clear where the problem with this lies.


  • #6116
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Logic placed this rule at the heart of science, not an atheist.
    ... funny thing that this 'logic' just happens to now be preventing the scientific publication of multiple scientific validations for the existence of God ... and atheists had nothing to do with placing it there ... and maintaing it ... strange that !!!:rolleyes:

    Thanks again for confirming that this rule is at the heart of science, like I have said.

    BTW what do you think of the recent mathemetical proof of Godel's Theorm on the existence of a Supreme Being.

    Prof. Kurt Godel, was the first recipient of the Albert Einstein Award for achievement in the natural sciences in March 1951 and he unfortunately died in 1978 before his Theorm on the existence of God could be proven.


  • #6117
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    ... funny thing that this 'logic' just happens to now be preventing the scientific publication of multiple scientific validations for the existence of God ... and atheists had nothing to do with placing it there ... and maintaing it ... strange that !!!:rolleyes:

    So if they are not published, why do you know they exist? Have you seen them yourself?


  • #6118
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... funny thing that this 'logic' just happens to now be preventing the scientific publication of multiple scientific validations for the existence of God ... and atheists had nothing to do with placing it there ... and maintaing it ... strange that !!!:rolleyes:

    Thanks again for confirming that this rule is at the heart of science, as I've said.

    How can they be scientific validations if science does not concern itself with the supernatural? Therefore, logically, they cannot be scientific or validations.


  • #6119
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    So if they are not published, why do you know they exist? Have you seen them yourself?
    Yes.


  • #6120
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    There is no point, as it would be asked if it went through (conventional scientific) peer review ... and as the the answer has to be 'no' it can be dismissed as 'unscientific'.

    ... but like all ideas of its time ... scientific proof that God exists is seeping throught the cracks ... the German mathematical proof for God's existence, being an example.

    Do you have access to these proofs then


  • Advertisement
  • #6121
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    Yes.

    Great, link them please.


Advertisement