That's the Omphalos hypothesis, which is logically sound, but theologically inconsistent with God as the source of all truth, especially if you're from the "God said it, therefore it's true" camp.
What is creation science?
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
That's the Omphalos hypothesis, which is logically sound, but theologically inconsistent with God as the source of all truth, especially if you're from the "God said it, therefore it's true" camp.
That is entirely the point of it.
You can't, which is why it's logically unassailable but theologically and practically unsatisfying. It's essentially the "shut up and go away" argument.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The realm of miracle should always be outside present falsification or it's a terrible religious belief. I'm not sure why "intellectually useless" is how you take it. It's more an exercise of showing how impermeable and awesome the Bible is at being forever-true.
I guess what I'm saying is that if it's sooo important to someone that they not only have to believe in God but in the Christian one, and not only have to believe in the Christian one but then take it all the way to requiring that all, then the only way the identity can stay relevant at all is to demonstrate how timeless Christianity is consistent with our growing understanding of the universe.
So in a sense it's intellectually crucial. It's just a matter of crucial or useless to what end?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I am probably one of those reluctant Christians that live and let live in practice. I enjoy the argument and thought process that people put into it, but like I asked in the Ask a Theologian thread, why would any one use science to discredit the Bible? Is it actually the same as someone using the Bible to discredit science? Or is it that some people just like to discredit a topic if they have the means to? Unless a person's mind is set in stone, they like to be challenged and stimulated intellectually.
Perhaps creation science gives some a feeling of being intellectually able to debate on an equal footing, but as pointed out it comes from a source that is not supposed to change as opposed to a method that is constantly changing. The Bible is laid out as a truth that cannot change while science is change that cannot rest on a truth. Not that they are the opposite of each other, It is that their presentation itself is what is at odds with either.
While they can be easily pitted against each other, that was not their intended purpose either. While creation science will never be cohesive, it is a tool just like any other tool that humans have as a way to stimulate their intellect.
Perhaps, I am totally wrong, and that is not how things actually are, but this post was not a judgment on what is right or wrong, but how I perceive things as going on from both perspectives. Now if someone can explain the "Cold War"?
Perhaps creation science gives some a feeling of being intellectually able to debate on an equal footing, but as pointed out it comes from a source that is not supposed to change as opposed to a method that is constantly changing. The Bible is laid out as a truth that cannot change while science is change that cannot rest on a truth. Not that they are the opposite of each other, It is that their presentation itself is what is at odds with either.
While they can be easily pitted against each other, that was not their intended purpose either. While creation science will never be cohesive, it is a tool just like any other tool that humans have as a way to stimulate their intellect.
Perhaps, I am totally wrong, and that is not how things actually are, but this post was not a judgment on what is right or wrong, but how I perceive things as going on from both perspectives. Now if someone can explain the "Cold War"?
I would also rather hear an honest "I don't know" than a bunch of made-up explanations. As to "this is what I believe," my next question would be, "Okay - why do you believe that?" (as in what are your reasons).
Wrymouth3
Emperor
Many people are terrified and afraid to admit they have no idea where the true meaning of faith lay. I was raised in a religious Jewish household (Not as religious as some, but more so than a handful), and because of this I tend to be extremely sympathetic and understanding of people who are very religious.
Not trying to say anything beyond what I said. What you decide to read therein is entirely your own invention.
Also I asked a question which remains unanswered.
What is "a falsifiable religion"? Religion is not science -similar to the Bible not being a science book.
God may very well be the source of all truth, but that has little to do with the age of the Earth or the universe at large.
It is only in the view of certain Christians that the Bible gets discredited by science (instead of what they believe, which is something different altogether). That apart, there are plenty of human reasons why anyone should want to discredit anything.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Then I have a question: Is a truth falsifiable? Or two: If it is then; what is a truth, but yet another idea that can be changed?
They can discredit it all they want, but if a truth is unchangeable, discrediting must change something else besides the truth. Does it change what would be the belief of the individual so there is no dissonance? Yet they are not agreeing with the truth, but denying the truth altogether.
They can discredit it all they want, but if a truth is unchangeable, discrediting must change something else besides the truth. Does it change what would be the belief of the individual so there is no dissonance? Yet they are not agreeing with the truth, but denying the truth altogether.
Sure. But falsifiable doesn't mean it will be shown to be false. If a whole bunch of science wasn't falsifiable, then we'd be much less confident in its truth.
Not being falsifiable is something that separates many beliefs from science, from being able to have any confidence in their truth. Ignoring that they've been falsified is what separates creation science rubbish from anything true, and anything scientific.
A religion that makes claims that are falsifiable. If a religion claims that if it was true, everyone doing A will experience B in their lifetime it is falsifiable.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Try harder then?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I can understand it as a theory, but how can any one prove a truth is a truth, if it is impossible to do so? I am not ruling out that we have been lied to, but how do we know we have been lied to? That we think that the truth has been eroded through proven theories, does not take away a truth that cannot be proven on it's own merit. No one can prove what is written in Genesis 1 is an out right lie. Neither can it be proven it is true. Yet humans continue to attempt to prove it true or false.
I can't follow most of that, or figure what you mean with 'a truth'.
As for the last bit, it should be pretty obvious that what is written there is wrong. That it is an incorrect story. That all available evidence contradicts it. Which shouldn't be any sort of surprise, because that applies equally to pretty much any other ancient story that tries to explain physics, biology, meteorology, etc, etc. It's only a problem for those who can't cope with the idea of their preferred stories being stories, who are convinced that thier preferred stories are statements of fact, a report of what happened, 'the truth'.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Can you prove that it was trying to explain? Or are you just assuming? While the story may be unique to me, I am not trying to prove that it is false or true. That is was an explanation or not. Yet you continue to express that it is false and the only proof you offer is the phrase it was a "false explanation". What makes it obvious? The fact that it does not make sense, or the fact that you have a theory.
Just because someone writes down information, does not necessarily mean they are explaining something. They may just be putting down facts. Now those facts may be a lie, but it is not a lie based on the point they were trying to come up with an explanation, it would be a lie, because some one told them a lie.
Yes, I am just assuming that creation myths, stories that persist, are trying to explain where we come from, where the world came from, how the world works. I am assuming that it wasn't prehistorical journalism, not just stating some facts as provided by a witness. But let's say my assumptions on that are completely wrong...
OK, so it wasn't meant to be an explanation for anything. So what? It remains false, regardless of what it was meant to be. Whether it was an attempt to explain stuff, whether it was 'just putting down facts', whether it was intended as a work of fiction to start with, whatever other reason there was for writing it. What it says happened is contradicted by all the available bits of evidence. It is not true. Simple as that. Don't need to attempt to spend time trying to prove if it's true or false, any more than you need to spend time attempting to prove the lord of the rings or a story about Thor hurling thunderbolts is true or false.
And as I said, that's only a problem for those who can't cope with the idea of their preferred stories being stories, who are convinced that their preferred stories are statements of fact, a report of what happened, 'the truth'.
OK, so it wasn't meant to be an explanation for anything. So what? It remains false, regardless of what it was meant to be. Whether it was an attempt to explain stuff, whether it was 'just putting down facts', whether it was intended as a work of fiction to start with, whatever other reason there was for writing it. What it says happened is contradicted by all the available bits of evidence. It is not true. Simple as that. Don't need to attempt to spend time trying to prove if it's true or false, any more than you need to spend time attempting to prove the lord of the rings or a story about Thor hurling thunderbolts is true or false.
And as I said, that's only a problem for those who can't cope with the idea of their preferred stories being stories, who are convinced that their preferred stories are statements of fact, a report of what happened, 'the truth'.
So religions claiming there is a God would fall in what category? The belief there is a God seems neither falsifiable nor verifiable. I would think claims fall in the category of doctrines adhered to by the followers of a religion, not per se the religion itself.
Try harder at what exactly? If you read something in my posts that isn't in there, that's hardly my responsibility, I think.
