Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[capnq]

(Krsqk To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy.

It is a logically fallacy, but it wasn't my point. I probably could have worded my point better.

I was trying to say that I don't believe it is necessary to interpret the Bible literally, in order for it to be credible.

People who dismiss the Bible as not credible often read it as literally as the Biblical Literists do.

[Phoenix-D]

"Agnosticism seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't understand why so many scoff at the mention of it."
"Our "facts" about the universe are based more on assumption than most people like to admit"

You hit at the answer to the first with the second. I've found that many people, myself included a lot of the time, have a serious dislike for saying or hearing the words "I don't know." Agnosticism *requries* that, it is that. Because of that dislike it's viewed a lack of curiosity or a cop-out..when IMO it's actually the opposite.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

The Bible is a nice work of fiction, but nothing more. I certainly don't interpret it as literal. I don't interpret The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars as literal. Those are also nice works of fiction.

The problem I'm having with the "systems evolved all at once" guess is 1) all systems would have to evolve at the same time--a pretty major accomplishment, even for a simple organism/living organic macromolecule/whatever; 2) we have no evidence of anything like that existing. In fact, we still have no evidence of any transitional forms existing (yes, the old no-missing-link thing). You'd think that, with the untold trillions or quadrillions of creatures that must have died here, that we'd find some of an in between species. We should find endless examples of them in at least one or two places on earth.

Take a look at a moneran, the simplest of organisms. They typically have all of those systems you are worried about, though in very simplified form. You are still assuming a magical jump between a lion with no lungs to a lion with lungs. Well, that never happened. ALL multi-cellular organisms have always had the bulk of the systems you mentioned. As they became more complex, the systems themselves also became more complex. There is no "missing link". One is not necessary. There is no lion with no lungs, then a lion with half lungs, then a lion with full lungs. All lions (and lion-like creatures that came before lions) had full lungs (and other systems).

Krsqk, I have a few questions for you. These are not meant as any sort of attack upon your beliefs, but as a continuation of this philosophical discussion.

1. What, in your words, is the Design Argument?

2. Why do you believe in God, and also in Creationism? On what is your belief based?

3. Why do you believe in Christianity and not another religion? Why is Christianity "more right" than any of the alternatives?

[ December 12, 2002, 21:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[TerranC]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
When my kids go to school I want them to learn all about how the Frost Giant Ymir was formed in the great void Ginnugagap, and that Odin (son of Bor, son of Buri who was formed in a block of ice and freed by the mystical cow Audhumla) slew him and made from his body the Earth (Midgard)...

The Norse creation myth.

And I also want my children (If I have any children) to learn that Zeus slayed his father, Cronus by cutting off his sexual organs, and that Zeus violated his mother because of the birds and the bees.

Edit: Fyron, the Bible is a Folklore/Myth that has some real life events in it, such as the babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and other fictional stuff. It is not wholesome fiction. *although I do not believe it to be fiction *

[ December 12, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Fyron]

I was refering to the parts that don't have some semblence of reality and history to them.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
2. Why do you believe in God, and also in Creationism? On what is your belief based?

I can't and wouldn't deign to speak for Krsqk, but any belief in God is by definition an act of faith. If it were provable or disprovable by observable facts then it would obviously not be something we would be debating. Even a belief in creation is an act of faith as it assumes the exsistance of a creator that cannot be proven, except by the creator.

I haven't got the impression from Krsqk's comments here that he is attempting to convince anyone of the certainty of his beliefs. He seems to be merely making the point that the commonly accepted scientific theories are based on many assumptions that may or may not be correct.

He doesn't appear to be saying that his beliefs aren't based on faith, but merely pointing out that yours, whether you accept it or not, may be too.

Geoschmo

[Krsqk]

Geo, that's an excellent representation of my position. Thanks for speaking for me. Now, don't go edit your post to make it say I favor throwing onions at hapless passers-by.

RE: Language as interpretation

E. Albright, you are exactly right. However, if something is written down, it must be interpreted in the context in which it was written.

For example, if I write a book about someone who plays with acid, it makes a major difference if I'm writing it during the 1860s or the 1960s. All language is subject to that change, although not usually in that magnitude.

RE: Design argument in my own words. Here goes (I don't claim to speak for other creationists, but this is the design argument as I understand it)...

Intelligent design requires intelligent designer. Man creates (or more properly, organizes what is already created), based on his intelligence. It's like a child playing with Tinkertoys--he's not truly creating, but rearranging what's already been given him.
Given the fact that we see design and order around us, it is logical to assume there is an intelligent Designer behind it. So far, we're okay with Hume's representation, but here we must part ways.
Hume uses the wording "like results, like effects" to say that the process of creating nature is identical to man's creative process, only several orders of magnitude higher in ability. Thus, God's creative process, like man's, must be imperfect and subject to limitation. This renders God no longer infinite, and few Christians will accept that.
The problem lies in Hume's extension of the principle. To continue our analogy, he extrapolates the child building with Tinkertoys to the factory making the Tinkertoys from other materials (still an imperfect process, but much less limited than the child's ability). The correct analogy from creation would be the child building with Tinkertoys and the factory creating the Tinkertoys out of nothing (an infinite order of magnitude higher). Hume, as a materialist, is operating from the assumption that something had to exist for God to use in creation; otherwise, his analogy falls apart. It's just a fancy straw man.

RE: Why do I believe in God? It all boils down to faith. Belief in no God requires faith, too. If you knew half of everything there was to know, you still couldn't prove that in the other half, there was a God. There is evidence that convinces me of God's existence, but the evidence is totally unnecessary. Welcome, but unnecessary.

RE: Why Christianity? Of course, this comes down to faith as well. One could go to several things in the Bible that have proven true, even after being ridiculed (i.e., the existence of the Hittites), or the historical accuracy, etc.; but no proof for one religion or another exists.

Any worldview is totally based on faith. That is the overall point I've striven for here. There is more than one worldview, but they do tend to boil down into two main types: 1) God made the world and makes the rules, or 2) The world made itself and we make the rules (or power makes rules, or money makes rules, etc.--that varies with interpretation). Several flavors of each exist, and some attempts have been made to marry the two, but they are unwilling partners

If an evolutionist accepts that his worldview is a faith, he's already halfway to becoming a creationist. No one would naturally look at the complexity found in nature and say, "Wow! That happened by chance!" any more than they think the space shuttle happened by chance. We have to be taught to think that way.

[edit: i like to out words ]

[ December 13, 2002, 03:17: Message edited by: Krsqk ]