To all the Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists

[ironduck]

Ok, I didn't expect wiki to be a great source for it, was just trying to find something simple..

 

[El_Machinae]

Ironduck - it is a fairly good summary of the argument (though I guess it's only well written if you already know what the argument is, Perfection seems to have mis-interpreted it, and I know he's quite intelligent). It just doesn't do it justice.

 

[Archbob]

But why would he interfere at that point when he hasn't interfered at any other points? He didn't interfere when Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and their ilk slaughtered millions and millions of innocent people.

Hey, he parted the Red Sea and pwned the Egyptians when they were about to destory the Israelites didn't he? And in the Joshua(conquest of Canaan), he delivered the peoples of those lands into the Israelites' hand, didn't he?

 

[sanabas]

Ontological proof of god is really not that good. It has a fairly large hole in it. If I get organised enough to find a link setting out the proof, I'll point out the hole.

 

[Archbob]

You can't prove the existence or non-existence of God empirically. You can only choose to believe or not.

 

[Perfection]

You can't prove the existence or non-existence of God empirically. You can only choose to believe or not.

The same could be said about numerous other concepts. I'd argue that since believing all this junk would be silly. The best thing to do is patently dismiss positve claims not based on empricism.

 

[Archbob]

You can't empirically prove the non-existence of God either.
Besides the Big Bang Theory never quite hit me as "empirical" either. Supposedly matter all came rushing out in this big explosion 15 billion or so years ago. But something can't come from nothing, so where did this matter come from? Was it contained as energy in some black hole?

 

[sanabas]

You can't empirically prove the non-existence of God either.

One of the main criteria in the definition of most gods is to put them outside normal observation, just so they're not subject to empiricism.

Yuo can't empirically prove the non-existence of my invisible bunny rabbit friend either, but that's no reason to think he exists.

 

[Perfection]

You can't empirically prove the non-existence of God either.

Of course not, but in the absence of emerical evidence I dismiss positve claims. If you can't show empirical evidence to support something, why should I believe it? I think it is prudent to rejct positve claims not based on emprical evidence.

Besides the Big Bang Theory never quite hit me as "empirical" either. Supposedly matter all came rushing out in this big explosion 15 billion or so years ago. But something can't come from nothing, so where did this matter come from? Was it contained as energy in some black hole?

The Big Bang Theory is at its heart empirical. There is a multitude of observed evidence that indicates that inflationary model of the universe is correct. Galactic redshifting, cosmic microwave background radiation, and distribution of the elements are all highly indicative of the validity of big bang thoery.

Now as per your question on possible conflicts with other theory. There are a number of explinations that allow the theories to be harmonious. I will post three:
1. Something can come from nothing. On the quantum scale this is already proven true, particles pop in and out of existance all the time. The probabilistic nature of the universe can account for it. The theory that nothing is ever comes from nothing is false.
2. The big bang was the beginning point of the universe. Nothing ever came from nothing, everything always was. It's just that there are no points of time before the big bang. Time before the big bang is as meaningless as negative temperature.
3. Stuff did come from something before. Some string thoerists claim that the universe behaves in a cyclic nature based on collisions of massive multidimensional thingies known as "branes".

 

[Archbob]

So your telling me the Universe just "popped" into existence. Its hard for me to believe that. I believe in evolution because of the fossil record. I would take a massive amount of energy to created all the mass for the Universe. Where do those particles pop out from? They can't just randomly come and go. I would more believe you if you said they warped in from somewhere else or were converted instanously from energy.

Another question is the question of how life began on Earth. Evolution explains the process of how we got to be, but never explains how life began. The Abiogensis theory has no real proof as lab replications have failed many times. Until humans can explain everthing there is, some people will always believe in a God.

 

[MRM]

So your telling me the Universe just "popped" into existence. Its hard for me to believe that. I believe in evolution because of the fossil record. I would take a massive amount of energy to created all the mass for the Universe. Where do those particles pop out from? They can't just randomly come and go. I would more believe you if you said they warped in from somewhere else or were converted instanously from energy.

Well, there is also the ( speculativ ) string theory that claims that an universe ( this and many others ) is the effect of a brane collision ...

but put this aside - at some point there must be an existence without any cause otherwise we wouldn't be here.
And the imagionation of a god would not explain this either. When nothing can come out of nothing, then where did god come from ... ? Who has created him ? ( or them ?, maybe the polytheist are right ? ) So the nothing can come without a cause argument don't work when it comes to existence itself .

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Bah, I had a long post here and CFC ate it. So I'll just get my point across in as insulting a way as possible, because I don't understand the other side's arguments and we're talking past each other.
El_Machinae, are you saying that a good God cannot exist because then he would be your nanny and wait on you hand and foot? Because that's where your slippery slope of "God intervenes" gets you.

 

[Sophie 378]

I love the idea of a website eating your post. Like this?

@FAL - we have had a few experiments making biomolecules from abio. A few amino acids are not too hard to make.

 

[ironduck]

Hey, he parted the Red Sea and pwned the Egyptians when they were about to destory the Israelites didn't he? And in the Joshua(conquest of Canaan), he delivered the peoples of those lands into the Israelites' hand, didn't he?

Ummm.. no, I don't think so.

But if he did, that would only further the question, why didn't he interfere when much, much greater problems arose like the ones I mentioned?

Once again I ask, how many innocent people can get slaughtered before god will interfere? You say that he will interfere if humans start a complete thermonuclear war because if he doesn't Jesus won't have any earth to come back to. So how complete does that nuclear war have to be, exactly? 90% of all people have to die before he'll consider interfering? 50%? 10%? At what point does it still make sense for Jesus to come back and save everyone?

Maybe Jesus should just get his ass in gear and go now before it's too late? Hundreds of millions of innocent people die of disease and starvation and what is Jesus doing?

 

[ironduck]

@FAL - we have had a few experiments making biomolecules from abio. A few amino acids are not too hard to make.

Yeah, but it's still some way to get to self-replicating rna in protocells It's underway though, Steen Rasmussen is running some interesting research at Los Alamos.

 

[Perfection]

So your telling me the Universe just "popped" into existence. Its hard for me to believe that.

First off, I noted 2 other potentially valid explinations, so I'm not taking any as fact, rather as hypthesis within the scientific community demonstrative with the ability to reconcile it with current theory. The idea is is stuff does pop in and out of existance, so given a massive enough amount of time the universe would be one.

I believe in evolution because of the fossil record.

As an aside, it's always so interesting the emphasis put on the fossil record by the scientific layman (not that I'm not a layman on the subject myself) when its role in the formulation of evolutionary theory was actually quite small.

I would take a massive amount of energy to created all the mass for the Universe.

So?

Where do those particles pop out from? They can't just randomly come and go.

Yes, particles can randomly come and go. It's been experimentally verified that they do

I would more believe you if you said they warped in from somewhere else or were converted instanously from energy.

Another question is the question of how life began on Earth. Evolution explains the process of how we got to be, but never explains how life began. The Abiogensis theory has no real proof as lab replications have failed many times.

Abiogenesis really isn't theory in the same sense that evolution is. It's a collection of ideas that speculate on the origin of life. While the exact mechanism hasn't been proven. There is plenty of empirical evidence suggestive of its existance, such as the enymatic activity of RNA, and the ability to produce complex polypeptides from inorganic chemicals.

Until humans can explain everthing there is, some people will always believe in a God.

This implies that god's role is filling the gaps in science. I find that to be a rather unsatisfying role for an infinite being.

 

[betazed]

Of course not, but in the absence of emerical evidence I dismiss positve claims. If you can't show empirical evidence to support something, why should I believe it? I think it is prudent to rejct positve claims not based on emprical evidence.

hmmm... not sure whether that is wise. There is a ton of stuff in science (and a whole lot of mathematics for which empirical evidence) is lacking. There is no empirical evidence that the number of digits of pi are infinite (there can't be). Would you reject that positive statement?

OTOH, if empirics tell you something will you definitely believe it? Empirically you know the electron is a particle (or a wave). But you do know better, don't you?

Empiricism is a good thumb-rule but definitely not a rock hard rule that you should stand by.

 

[Perfection]

hmmm... not sure whether that is wise. There is a ton of stuff in science (and a whole lot of mathematics for which empirical evidence) is lacking.

Lacking yes, definite no. String theory for example has little confirmitory evidence, but it is based on empirical observation and extrapolates off of observed evidence.

There is no empirical evidence that the number of digits of pi are infinite (there can't be). Would you reject that positive statement?

Mathematics makes no positive claims about the universe. Pi has infinite digits simply because we created a situation where that is the only logical outcome. It's basicly restated the assumptions in a changed form

OTOH, if empirics tell you something will you definitely believe it? Empirically you know the electron is a particle (or a wave). But you do know better, don't you?

I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. Please expand

Empiricism is a good thumb-rule but definitely not a rock hard rule that you should stand by.

I disagree. For positive claims empiricism is the best way to go.

 

[betazed]

<snip> extrapolates off of observed evidence. <snip> .

There you go. You said it. As long as you can extrapolate off observed evidence (and not necessarily needing direct observational evidence) you can give empirics somewhat lesser importance.

String theory for example has little confirmitory evidence

Actually, it has zero confirmatory evidence.

Mathematics makes no positive claims about the universe.

But that is all string theory is. It is for all practical purposes pure math. And it makes lots of positive claims about the universe.

I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. Please expand

All i wanted to say is that empirics can be misleading.

For positive claims empiricism is the best way to go.

Agreed. I was arguing whether it was the only way to go. I don't think it is. It is too restrictive.

 

[El_Machinae]

El_Machinae, are you saying that a good God cannot exist because then he would be your nanny and wait on you hand and foot?

Oh, no, a good God certainly could exist. I just don't accept the existence of an ALL good, ALL powerful, and ALL knowing God - not because he would 'nanny' us, but because evil exists.

If I knowingly perform an action that has an element of evil, can I make the claim that it is 100% good? I don't believe so. I don't accept the 'definition' that a 100% good action can contain evil. I certainly accept that a 'mostly' good action can contain some evil.

So, if God is ALL good, how did he create evil? By creating (knowingly) a situation where people suffer, there is an element of evil to the creation. To be ALL good, He would have to prevent ALL evil, or not undertake the action in the first place.