Poly: It is quite evident from cmkeller’s last responses to both you and me, that ol’ cm will not accept either fact or rationality in this discussion.
I’m done with the attempt.
Chaim said:
You can make up all sorts of stories about this, Chaim, but it comes down to God creating a forgery of a world that He (according to you) doesn’t want us to believe in. Yes, I do believe that any supreme being who would do this would do it with fraudulent intent. There is no reason to do so if there is no such intent present. Your concept of God wants people to ignore reality and trust blindly in a book.
While I can see Chaim’s point on the question of whether or not the word “forgery” is appropriate, I think it’s mostly a matter of semantics. If I buy my wife a Klimt poster rather than a Klimt original, she can tell the difference. But we are positing not that the fake is exactly like the original, but that it is more impressive than the original- as if Klimt had scrawled “The Kiss” with crayons on a sheet of construction paper, and I then presented you with a “reproduction” that is exquisitely executed on canvas. Or to use another analogy, it’s as if we are supposed to compare Genes VII with the little Jehovah’s Witnesses blue book on creation science, and believe that the former is an elaborate but pedagogically useful fake (“Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertium,” anyone?) whereas the latter represents a simplistic and logically inconsistent reality.
I must admit, Chaim, that your position puzzles me. If you are willing to explain away contrary evidence for a young earth through miraculous fakery, why not explain away contradictory evidence for the Flood the same way?
-Ben
BATGIRL, BATGIRL, CALLING BATGIRL!
Are you still there?
-Ben
DavidB:
And in that, you’re incorrect. I could speculate as to the reason (as I have earlier in this thread), or I could just say that the reasons of a higher being are unfathomable to us humans (which would probably be true even if my speculations are, in their limited human way, correct). But unless asked, I’m not going to waste my bytes on it, because your own leanings wish to view religious belief in the most malicious possible light, no matter what I might say.
Sorry; but your definition of “blind trust” is extremely broad. My understanding of the trust G-d asks for is that he presented the book in a great public ceremony involving a million plus people hearing G-d’s voice come from a mass of fire at the top of a mountain accompanied by sounds of trumpets blaring, etc., and that he asks us to believe the testimony of the witnesses to the event, handed down through the generations. To you, that’s too much to ask. Not to me.
Ben:
Sorry if I seem puzzling. Let me try to answer your question in a way that will make my overall viewpoint clearly understandable:
The Torah says that everything was created in six days, some 5760 years ago. That means that at that time, G-d instituted the natural order such as we know it today. Barring any mention of miracles, everything since then occurred by some natural mechanism.
Hence, while the appearance of age as part of creation is a viable position within the framework of the Biblical creation narrative, additional miracles to “cover up” the flood are not mentioned, so cannot be assumed.
Now, a question about one of your statements:
I don’t quite understand this. Are you trying to say that an Earth-like planet would not look the way it does now, but rather, it would be less impressive? Or that that’s my position? I’m a bit unclear on this statement of yours.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Ben!! You win the Spiritus Mundi award for best Borgesian reference in a Creationist debate. Walk down the garden of forking paths and collect your winnings from Pierre Menard, the author of Don Quixote.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
So how do you explain the massive evidence against the Flood?
Then perhaps I have misunderstood you. Are you saying that if Mormonism met your standard of proof, you would be forced to consider whether your standard of proof was flawed?
**
Nonetheless, a powerful being like Amaterasu could hide on Mt. Sinai and produce effects that could fool people into thinking that God was present. Your argument seems a little circular to me, because you say that you don’t believe that Amaterasu was God because Amaterasu doesn’t meet your definition of God. Who does meet your definition? Yahweh. Ergo, your standard of proof only works when applied to Yahweh. Do you see what I mean? Who are you to say that the Almighty has to have certain characteristics? Who are you to reject Her for taking on a human Aspect?
**
I misspoke somewhat, then. Muslims don’t decide that the Koran is true because it’s beautiful; the Koran tells them it is true because it is so beautiful. The New Testament says that it is true because Jesus was resurrected, etc. All of the religions I mentioned come with a built in “believe me because” clause, just like Judaism- and that clause is carefully defined to do exactly what it was intended to do. The question is, are the proofs really valid? Yours clearly is not, because it requires you to discard two major rules of rationality: Popperian falsifiability and Occam’s Razor. I mean, I didn’t make up the rules either- logic is logic. If you make a claim which doesn’t have a falsification condition, then it’s irrational.
First off, I never said that Occam’s Razor was proof. What I actually said was that if you discard Occam’s Razor, you can prove anything.
Secondly, I don’t think you understand Occam’s Razor very well. What do you consider to be “proof”? No matter what sort of evidence you provide, it could have been an illusion produced by a malicious gremlin. The only reason you discard the gremlin idea is because of Occam’s Razor. It’s an indispensable tool of logic which people use every day without knowing it, which is why I think it’s a bit misguided of you to think that you’re being rational when you discard it.
**
What I mean is that I’m not the first person to observe that it’s more impressive for God to create a simple seed containing the potentiality of the universe as we know it, rather than putting it together as is. Michaelangelo’s genius is demonstrated by the Sistine Chapel, but his genius would have been much, much greater if he had planted a tiny seed in the ground and the Sistine Chapel had grown from it.
-Ben
Apparently, I am descended from a monkey.
Here’s the correct link: www.icr.org/
Oh, I was waiting for someone to post a link to the Institute for Creation Research.
You’ve GOT to be joking.
See you tomorrow.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
That’s all fine and well, but it doesn’t answer my questions. Why do galaxies rotate? How do you explain protein homology? While we’re at it, why does the Earth have a magnetic field? Perhaps you would care to have a crack at them?
-Ben
What does posting a link to the Institute for Crackpot Research have to do with science?
Now now- namecalling is a cheap shot. The real problem is that the ICR has no info on its website which is at all relevant to the OP.
-Ben
No…The real problem is that the ICR has no info on its website which is at all relevant to science.
http://www.icr.org/goodsci.htm (Pointing this out does not constitute an endorsement on my part. It constitutes ridicule.)
I may bring Darwin out of retirement.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
http://www.icr.org/goodsci.htm (Pointing this out does not constitute an endorsement on my part. It constitutes ridicule.)
I may bring Darwin out of retirement.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
No, the real problem is that the ICR has no information anywhere that is at all relevant to science.
David:
Here’ssome science for 'ya
CalifBoomer – I checked out the site. In the very abstract, they show how unscientific they are by stating:
Too complex to have developed by chance? How do they know? Oh, wait, I forgot, because they already had made up their minds ahead of time that the Bible is literally true.
That’s not science. That’s religion impersonating science. And it’s the only thing ICR is good at.
Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.