Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[excreationist]

Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented....

That seems to involve skeptics and like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

 

[Elixir]

Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented....

That seems to involve skeptics and like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations".

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

Nah. I think "Don't put God to the test" is sage advice to explain things in a useful manner if you can, instead of incuriously invoking "divine" explanations that are not falsifiable. IOW, do your testing without using gods.
Even Behe had to admit that his IC example of the flagellum was wrong, in that credible evolutionary pathways exist.

 

[Elixir]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

A simulation that points to itself. Hmmm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

Nah. I think "Don't put God to the test" is sage advice to explain things in a useful manner if you can, instead of incuriously invoking "divine" explanations that are not falsifiable. IOW, do your testing without using gods.
Even Behe had to admit that his IC example of the flagellum was wrong, in that credible evolutionary pathways exist.

But the Wizard said not to pay attention to the guy behind the curtain.

 

[excreationist]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

Like I've said, I think "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". I think that theory also covers non-naturalistic things like a simulation. That way the simulation is as immersive as possible. Like that Futurama God quote says, "when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

I'm saying there is no evidence that can convince skeptics of the existence of God so there is no compelling evidence for them for ANY "god of the gaps". So if God is playing "hide and seek", when he is "hiding" it is completely from view....

 

[DrZoidberg]

So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?

Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.

Laplace is the one who said it the best I think. He was a Christian. He simply removed any mention from his scientific work because he didn't think it aided understanding of what is going on in his scientific model.

The point of science is to add clarity to how the world works. Theology, is by it's very nature, mystical and nebulous. Ie "God works in mysterious ways". If God is mysterious keeping God in your theory makes your theory harder to understand, no matter if God really is involved. By removing any mention of God Laplace made his scientific theories much more clear.

It's the same deal with the theory of evolution. The idea that God guides evolution, nudging it in various direction, adds nothing to the theory. No matter if God really is doing it or not.

As Laplace pointed out, we're always better off removing God from any scientific theory.

This brings us to why Creationists or "creation science" stubbornly feels the need to insert God into every scientific theory. It's not to add an clarity. Nor is it an attempt to understand the world. It's not about science at all.

We live in a world where science and scientific language is the highest authority. If we want authority we need to coach our ideas in scientific language. It's not harder than that. Creation Science are religious people trying to sneak in on a free ride to get authority. It's transparent what they're doing. It's dumb.

 

[DrZoidberg]

....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.

I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution - not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

Our evidence for gravity is actually quite weak, as scientific theories go. It's based on science on one celestial body. We have no idea what kind of gravitational weirdness we might find out there. We do hope that our science here has nailed it. But it's still just a hope.

We just think it's a strong theory because anyone can test it by themselves. But they're all on the same celestial body. It's the same data point.

While the theory of evolution is supported by billions of independent individually verifiable data points. The theory of evolution is an incredibly strong scientific theory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

....Please identify the contradiction.

"....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

"....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.

You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....

Um, yeah?
I do not see a contradiction.

What do you think 'atheist' means when you say 'atheist evolution?'

 

[Keith&Co.]

But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....

....such as...?

In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.

You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?

Yeah. Could be. Still, no scientific evidence for the supernatural influence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Theists would claim that there could be evidence such as irreducible complexity -

a claim that never stands up to scrutiny, when scientists examine a claimed example.

So, no. Still no scientific reason to treat superstition as science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, think about this for a second.
You latch onto the idea that if god or the simulation doesn't want to be detected, it need not be....while also alluding to how you determined that it's a simulation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Theists would claim that there could be evidence such as irreducible complexity -

a claim that never stands up to scrutiny, when scientists examine a claimed example.

So, no. Still no scientific reason to treat superstition as science.

Irreducible complexity of a snowflake. Therefore snow doesn’t exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

Like I've said, I think "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". I think that theory also covers non-naturalistic things like a simulation. That way the simulation is as immersive as possible. Like that Futurama God quote says, "when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".

There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

I'm saying there is no evidence that can convince skeptics of the existence of God so there is no compelling evidence for them for ANY "god of the gaps". So if God is playing "hide and seek", when he is "hiding" it is completely from view....

So patterns, occasional patterns, and chaos are evidence of a simulation.

 

[atrib]

You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.

Our evidence for gravity is actually quite weak, as scientific theories go. It's based on science on one celestial body. We have no idea what kind of gravitational weirdness we might find out there. We do hope that our science here has nailed it. But it's still just a hope.

We just think it's a strong theory because anyone can test it by themselves. But they're all on the same celestial body. It's the same data point.

We can observe the effect of gravity on literally billions of celestial objects: the objects in our solar system, the objects in our galaxy (other solar systems), the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy and the star systems orbiting this black hole in close proximity, other galaxies and how they are bound together in gravitational clusters and so on. Heck, we recently observed the gravity waves produced by two neutron stars merging. So it is obviously not true that we can observe and test gravity on just our planet; we can do this on a universal scale.

We have no idea what kind of gravitational weirdness we might find out there.

We don't know how to model gravity in certain situations, as in black holes and close to the surface of neutron stars perhaps. Is that what you were saying?

 

[excreationist]

Um, yeah?
I do not see a contradiction.

You said you'd call non-theistic evolution "science". Then you said "science" is neutral regarding divine action (non-theistic[specifically exclude DA]/theistic[require DA]) and evolution.

In a way your posts made sense - you could say that physics is science and science is neutral on whether it is physics, chemistry, biology, etc. But the word "physics" isn't really a synonym for the word "science" (and I was looking for a synonym for "non-theistic evolution")

What do you think 'atheist' means when you say 'atheist evolution?'

I didn't use that exact term but I think it means that there was no divine action in evolution.

But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....

....such as...?

https://www.oldearth.org/old_earth_creationism.htm

"....Some believe he created the natural laws, and let evolution run its course, while others believe God was actively involved in the evolution process..."​

So it would involve that latter group...

Theists would claim that there could be evidence such as irreducible complexity -

a claim that never stands up to scrutiny, when scientists examine a claimed example.

Like I said, I reject it - "I think that there were no jumps in evolution - that it seems perfectly naturalistic...."

So, no. Still no scientific reason to treat superstition as science.

Well I consider my belief in a simulation to be pseduoscience.

So, think about this for a second. You latch onto the idea that if god or the simulation doesn't want to be detected, it need not be....while also alluding to how you determined that it's a simulation.

Like I said I think God could be playing "hide and "seek" - and sometimes he is "hiding" (or not so present or obvious).

It is similar to Psalm 22:

"My God, my God, why have you deserted me?
Why do you seem so far away when I need you to save me?
Why do you seem so far away that you can’t hear my groans?
My God, I cry out in the daytime. But you don’t answer."​

Though I don't think it is historical, Jesus quoted this when the presence of God left him....

But I think it gives me hints of its existence e.g. post #112 The Futurama quote isn't saying it doesn't want to be detected at all - just that people can't be sure that it's done anything at all. I think evidence for a possible simulation is stronger than the evidence for an intervening intelligent force - but it still isn't obvious.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You said you'd call non-theistic evolution "science". Then you said "science" is neutral regarding divine action (non-theistic[specifically exclude DA]/theistic[require DA]) and evolution.

Ah. By non-theistic i read 'lacking' theism. Not 'literally excluding' theism.
All science is non-theistic by my understanding of the term.
Not to be confused with anti-theistic.

In a way your posts made sense - you could say that physics is science and science is neutral on whether it is physics, chemistry, biology, etc. But the word "physics" isn't really a synonym for the word "science" (and I was looking for a synonym for "non-theistic evolution")

i did not see this as requesting a synonym.

I would call it 'evolution.' I would avoid qualifiers that lend equal credibility to theistic evolution, as if the two choices were equally supported.

"....Some believe he created the natural laws, and let evolution run its course, while others believe God was actively involved in the evolution process..."​

So....creationism. theistic evolution. Not science.

The Futurama quote isn't saying it doesn't want to be detected at all -

just conveniently, never when anyone asks for evidence. Then it's indistiguishable from nothing at all...

 

[excreationist]

"....others believe God was actively involved in the evolution process..."

So....creationism. theistic evolution. Not science.

Earlier you said "All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science"

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that science doesn't rule out the supernatural which means that it is possible that the supernatural exists and that the supernatural can still involve science to some degree. But I think you meant that if a person is talking about the supernatural then it can't be considered science - or something like that. (roughly)

The Futurama quote isn't saying it doesn't want to be detected at all -

just conveniently, never when anyone asks for evidence. Then it's indistinguishable from nothing at all...

There are other times an intelligent force could seem to show its presence besides when a person is demanding obvious proof.

In case you were interested, here are some of the reasons why my faith in an intelligent force has grown relatively strong:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...nces-that-suggest-an-intelligent-force-exists

Like the saying goes "God works in mysterious ways" - and "Don't put God to the test". If God was obvious there would be no "hiding" during "hide and seek". And my saying: "I think the intelligent force only intervenes in a way that skeptics could explain as involving coincidence, delusion, hallucinations, or fraud".

Also:
Though there are hints that our world could involve a simulation and an intervening intelligence, modern supernatural skeptics feel justified in their belief that the world is purely mechanistic and physical. This way a belief in paranormal intervention is more about personal faith and reasoning rather than involving any type of scientific consensus. - so it is more intimate....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Earlier you said "All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science"

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that science doesn't rule out the supernatural which means that it is possible that the supernatural exists

okay

and that the supernatural can still involve science to some degree.

nope.....

But I think you meant that if a person is talking about the supernatural then it can't be considered science - or something like that. (roughly)

The supernatural may exist. Science cannot rule it out, but cannot use it, either.
The entire theory of gravity is unchanged if ghosts are or are not real.
The water cycle can be drawn in great detail and none of it changes if unicorns exist or do not.

You can be a scientist who believes in gods. Witches. Leprechauns. Capitol tourists. Elves.
But if you use the supernatural in an explanation for something, it's not science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Any claim made by any person ascribing to any "unnatural" forces can be put to the test. Experiments and observations can be made to determine whether there is anything going on that is not presently understood. Quantum entanglement or "spooky action at a distance" is a good example of proving that something that appears to be unnatural can in fact be measured, quantified and the information used to understand the phenomenon. We may not know exactly how the process works but we can still quantify the phenomenon.

If, however, I am incapable of comprehending how this method of investigation works I will continue to make claims that are unrealistic and impossible to quantify. People say prayer works, for example, and we can design experiments to determine whether in fact it does. And we have, and it doesn't. But that won't keep me from believing it does if I am unable to comprehend the scientific method.

The experiments would be quite simple. We could pray that someone killed in an accident is resurrected. We can pray that someone grows a new finger or limb that was accidentally lost or genetically unformed. And we can have controls. Like quantum entanglement, we don't have to understand precisely what's happening in the process, only that the process is real, not merely a claim.

We can design experiments to find out whether a person is being visited by an unknown force. But we can't know whether that force is a simulator or a creator or something else until we can define what it is, and then test for it. Otherwise it's still the magic dust mite in my bed that's causing it all.