Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[rousseau]

The adult Santa, on the other hand, is like all such entities, invisible and impossible to observe, but it becomes just as apparent as the childhood santa was at the earlier age. You would think the propensity to disbelieve in fantastic childhood stories would make adult santas rare or impossible. Interestingly that isn't the case.

Technically not true, there is evidence of organized religions and their veracity everywhere - churches, cultural artifacts, history, stories passed from person to person.

Religion is so normalized in our day to day lives that it's not surprising that people believe. If anything religion is more misleading than Santa, because we know Santa is a fun story, but religion is literally believed to be real by many, and has been for thousands of years.

To a child there is organized santa veneration and belief everywhere too. The childhood perception of the childhood santa is exactly the same thing as the adult perception of adult santas. If you think that is not accurate I'd like to know how they are different. The adult perception of the childhood santa is certainly different than the childhood perception of the childhood santa, but that's to be expected.

Adults who take part in their organized adult santa churches and adult santa stories are perceiving just like children. The supernatural aspects of their beliefs are identical to when they were children. It's all the same, it's belief in woo. Calling it supernatural is just giving it an allegedly respectable label but it doesn't change what it is.

My main point is that as a child the childhood santa is even more real than the adult santas. The child can actually sit in Santa's lap and talk to him and Santa gets his letters and brings him gifts. Can adults do that with their gods? Do they get to sit in their laps and ask them for things and have those things appear? Not hardly.

I have a unique perspective on all this as a brother-in-law suffered brain damage at birth so that intellectually he never progressed beyond about age four. So naturally when he was in his 50s and living at home he was still utterly devoted to Santa, largely because of his mother. He only ever got past his belief when he entered a supervised group home. So I was able to watch this man in his 50s completely believing in Santa. It's identical to what adults do with their gods, their adult santas. It's exactly the same thing except that to the child there is more proof of his santa than adults have for their adult santas.

I'm questioning your main point that santa is more real than the adult God, and that it takes child like perception to believe in God.

Maybe you could re-consider how difficult it is for adults to see through every day and ubiquitous cultural elements: religion, marriage, nationalism, status etc

That God isn't real, in many cases, is very hard to deduce. Many members of this forum spent years of their lives figuring it out.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

 

[Keith&Co.]

That God isn't real, in many cases, is very hard to deduce. Many members of this forum spent years of their lives figuring it out.

It's the instant feedback.
When you catch my dad cheating at a game, he shrugs, gives back the money, your bishop, Park Place, whatever. When i started to wonder if Santa was real, they all shrugged and stopped telling me Santa details.

But...

When i told the Chief that the command's justification for withholding liberty was in direct contradiction with the facts of the matter, i got attacked personally as a troublemaker...which i was, but that didn't make the command's story true. Still had to wait an extra six hours for libs to go down, and how dare i mutiny.
When i started to question details about our religion, i was attacked for daring to question GOD. My curiosity was to blame, not the inconsistencies within the story, or the differences between what they told me and what i fucking saw.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm questioning your main point that santa is more real than the adult God, and that it takes child like perception to believe in God.

From the perspective of the child, how is santa not more real than adult gods? I think you're seeing santa as an adult, which is good, but as a child, santa rocks. I can sit in his lap, he talks to me and brings me presents. Does it get any more real? I can feel him, he holds me, he has a voice, he laughs, he talks to my parents. All my family tells me he's real too, tell me his reindeer fly. They put up a christmas tree and make him cookies. Stores are full of christmas things, music everywhere.

Now contrast that with the adult version. Can you touch your adult santa, pull his beard, hear his voice, smell him, sit in his lap? NO! Adult santa has become all spooky and invisible and everyone says it's real but it sure isn't real like santa was real.

The child believes because it's as real as it gets. Then the child finds out it's just a story. The adult santa isn't a patch to the child santa when it comes to being convincing. Kieth&Co.'s above post pretty much sums up the reason people don't doff their adult santas, and it has nothing to do with it being real. The message is 'don't rock the boat.' Even if you think the adult santa's are not real, just keep acting like they are.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pondering the need to invent a third party to bring presents to children for the holiday about Jesus. Apparently no one would believe Jesus went home to home...

 

[hyzer]

I'm questioning your main point that santa is more real than the adult God, and that it takes child like perception to believe in God.

From the perspective of the child, how is santa not more real than adult gods? I think you're seeing santa as an adult, which is good, but as a child, santa rocks. I can sit in his lap, he talks to me and brings me presents. Does it get any more real? I can feel him, he holds me, he has a voice, he laughs, he talks to my parents. All my family tells me he's real too, tell me his reindeer fly. They put up a christmas tree and make him cookies. Stores are full of christmas things, music everywhere.

Now contrast that with the adult version. Can you touch your adult santa, pull his beard, hear his voice, smell him, sit in his lap? NO! Adult santa has become all spooky and invisible and everyone says it's real but it sure isn't real like santa was real.

The child believes because it's as real as it gets. Then the child finds out it's just a story. The adult santa isn't a patch to the child santa when it comes to being convincing. Kieth&Co.'s above post pretty much sums up the reason people don't doff their adult santas, and it has nothing to do with it being real. The message is 'don't rock the boat.' Even if you think the adult santa's are not real, just keep acting like they are.

When I was four years old (1963) for Christmas my parents took me to visit my grandparents north of Pittsburgh. Their house was in the country side. It was snowing on Christmas Eve. At night in the dark, a sleigh pulled by a horse appeared on my grandparents driveway - and seated in the sleigh was Santa Claus. Santa was invited into my grandparents home where Santa delivered two presents (a Tonka-toy type tank for me and a silver rattle for my 12 month old baby brother). We have half a family photo album devoted to this Christmas Eve (made possibly by a friendly neighbor with a beard, a horse and a sleigh). I believed in Santa until I was nearly a teen defending him by asserting that "in 1963 he visited me first, before any other kids - I was still awake!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pondering the need to invent a third party to bring presents to children for the holiday about Jesus. Apparently no one would believe Jesus went home to home...

That's not it.
Cardinal: So, how's the campaign to stamp out solstice celebrations going?
Bishop: Not well, people are really attached to their pagan holiday.
C: Dang. Doesn't look good for us, then.
B: Should we steal it?
C: Looks like we're gonna have to. Okay, so the date's Jesus' birthday. The celebration's a high holy day, and the Star on the tree is the Star of Bethlehem.
B: Great. And Jesus brings everyone gifts and candy?
C: Shit, no! Then they'll expect him to actually answer their other prayers! No, no, sanctify some pagan character whose only job is Christ-mass gifts, leave Jesus off the hook.

 

[rousseau]

I'm questioning your main point that santa is more real than the adult God, and that it takes child like perception to believe in God.

From the perspective of the child, how is santa not more real than adult gods? I think you're seeing santa as an adult, which is good, but as a child, santa rocks. I can sit in his lap, he talks to me and brings me presents. Does it get any more real? I can feel him, he holds me, he has a voice, he laughs, he talks to my parents. All my family tells me he's real too, tell me his reindeer fly. They put up a christmas tree and make him cookies. Stores are full of christmas things, music everywhere.

Now contrast that with the adult version. Can you touch your adult santa, pull his beard, hear his voice, smell him, sit in his lap? NO! Adult santa has become all spooky and invisible and everyone says it's real but it sure isn't real like santa was real.

It seems like you're missing my point, or just ignoring it. My understanding of what you're saying is there is no physical embodiment of God, therefore Santa is perceived as more real. Yes, I'm with you on the point that to children Santa is real because there is a physical embodiment. But the analogy between child / adult isn't even really apt, because children will believe anything you tell them. You could feed a four year old literally any story and they would believe it.

But my argument is that you're understating how much of a physical embodiment of the Adult God there is. No you can't actually see God, but you can spend your entire life surrounded by other people who literally believe in it's existence, and will do anything in their power to convince you that it's real. In some regions of the world people can spend their entire life coming across no contrary social inputs.

You can live in cities where there might be 20 - 30 churches, some very grandiose, and in Catholic versions very striking imagery. In these same cities there might be biblical quotes on a number of street corners.

The bible is the world's best selling book and at least half of the world's population believe that it's a holy text.

On Facebook you can follow religious pages that will promote religion day after day.

So for the adult it's not just a matter of intellect, and interacting with the world like a child, it's a matter of religion being a normalized part of our culture. Religion is even more pernicious than Santa because to most of the world it is real. I get that you consider yourself an activist of sorts with regards to religion, but the constant insinuation that the religious are just dumb feels off the mark to me.

I think it's more the case that those who can see beyond culture are very smart. Where those who fall for culture are just normal people.

 

[excreationist]

.....Dictionaries can't save a concept from being incoherent. What makes the "supernatural" concept incoherent is that it's circular; well, all dictionary definitions are ultimately circular. Back in the dead tree days I had a dictionary that defined "god" as "a male deity" and defined "deity" as "a god or goddess". Dictionaries rely on their readers to break the circle, by having already acquired by some non-dictionary means an understanding of enough of the words. But in the case of "supernatural" and "natural" there's nothing to break the circle with, any more than with "god" and "deity".

What's supernatural? Phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.

What's a law of nature? A statement about what stuff does that's true of all the stuff in nature.

What's nature? The portion of reality that isn't supernatural....

What if the natural world is defined as it being the "physical" world and physical laws - like "The Standard Model" and its forces and elementary particles? I believe that the supernatural can not be proven to exist to skeptics but I still think the concept can make sense.

It is similar to the game "The Sims" where the sims and objects are at the mercy of computer code and the player (completely determining their behaviour). Using the mouse the player can interact with the world but the world can't really affect the player (other than being seen and heard) - so in that game the sims and objects are "natural" (or physical) while the player is "supernatural".... well there are also the sims' mental processes - which are completely based on the computer (or the player affecting the computer).

 

[DBT]

If something cannot be proven, there being insufficient evidence, there is no reason to be convinced that it is true. A conviction is not justified. It remains an idea. Ideas can be entertained.

 

[fromderinside]

Mata Hari is that you?

 

[Bomb#20]

What's supernatural? Phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.

What's a law of nature? A statement about what stuff does that's true of all the stuff in nature.

What's nature? The portion of reality that isn't supernatural....

What if the natural world is defined as it being the "physical" world and physical laws - like "The Standard Model" and its forces and elementary particles? I believe that the supernatural can not be proven to exist to skeptics but I still think the concept can make sense.

That's just saying "natural" and "physical" are synonyms, which doesn't break the circle -- it just runs the circle through "physical".

When we discover something that doesn't fit our notion of physical laws, we don't conclude it's nonphysical; we conclude that we were wrong about what the laws of physics are and we figure out better laws. This has happened repeatedly since the time of Newton and Galileo. We thought physics was a matter of particles pushing and pulling on each other; then in the 1800s we discovered force fields. So we thought it was a matter of fields and particles exerting forces on each other; then the precession of Mercury disabused us of that notion. We thought it was about the current state of the universe deterministically controlling the subsequent state; then we discovered quantum randomness. We thought it was about locality and the propagation of changes to neighboring points in the geometry of spacetime; then we discovered entanglement. What's next? We don't know yet, but we do know that "The Standard Model" is wrong, since quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent with each other.

So what would it mean for us at some point to say "Yes, yes, all those things were physical; but this latest thing we've discovered falls completely outside that pattern, and is really nonphysical, because this time it's the Actual Laws of Physics that don't cover it, and not just our current best incorrect approximation to the laws of physics."? It wouldn't mean the new fact about the world was different this time -- it would mean we were different this time. It would mean we were giving up.

If you disagree, explain what "physical" means without using a circular definition.

It is similar to the game "The Sims" where the sims and objects are at the mercy of computer code and the player (completely determining their behaviour). Using the mouse the player can interact with the world but the world can't really affect the player (other than being seen and heard) - so in that game the sims and objects are "natural" (or physical) while the player is "supernatural".... well there are also the sims' mental processes - which are completely based on the computer (or the player affecting the computer).

But being seen and heard is the world affecting the player. Just as you can't explain what a Sim does without taking the player's mouse movements into account, you equally can't explain how the player chooses to move the mouse without taking the Sims' mental processes into account. Causality flows freely across the line we imagine separating the "The Sims" world from the world the player lives in. All that computer code isn't natural while the player is supernatural; humans are natural too. The line we imagine separating the "The Sims" world from the world the player lives in exists only in our imaginations, just like the line in the mind of some stodgy old-school 1890 physicist who decided electromagnetic waves must be magical because they held energy without any particles to carry it. If a Sim thinks the computer code is all there is to physics, and then when he discovers there's a player with a mouse he can interact with he concludes players are supernatural, that isn't a Sim discovering physics can't account for everything. That's a Sim giving up.

 

[excreationist]

.....If a Sim thinks the computer code is all there is to physics, and then when he discovers there's a player with a mouse he can interact with he concludes players are supernatural, that isn't a Sim discovering physics can't account for everything. That's a Sim giving up.

I'd assume that the mouse pointer can only be seen by the player and the sims also can't see or hear the player. The only activity of the player that the sims would be able to detect is the player creating, removing, moving, and modifying objects - and when the player is giving orders to the sims they would think they (or part of their personality) thought up the decision themselves. Sometimes the sims call out to the player but they wouldn't know anything about the player.

Your argument seems pretty solid though natural vs supernatural is assumed to be meaningful by lots of people including in the definition of naturalism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm questioning your main point that santa is more real than the adult God, and that it takes child like perception to believe in God.

From the perspective of the child, how is santa not more real than adult gods? I think you're seeing santa as an adult, which is good, but as a child, santa rocks. I can sit in his lap, he talks to me and brings me presents. Does it get any more real? I can feel him, he holds me, he has a voice, he laughs, he talks to my parents. All my family tells me he's real too, tell me his reindeer fly. They put up a christmas tree and make him cookies. Stores are full of christmas things, music everywhere.

Now contrast that with the adult version. Can you touch your adult santa, pull his beard, hear his voice, smell him, sit in his lap? NO! Adult santa has become all spooky and invisible and everyone says it's real but it sure isn't real like santa was real.

It seems like you're missing my point, or just ignoring it. My understanding of what you're saying is there is no physical embodiment of God, therefore Santa is perceived as more real. Yes, I'm with you on the point that to children Santa is real because there is a physical embodiment. But the analogy between child / adult isn't even really apt, because children will believe anything you tell them. You could feed a four year old literally any story and they would believe it.

But my argument is that you're understating how much of a physical embodiment of the Adult God there is. No you can't actually see God, but you can spend your entire life surrounded by other people who literally believe in it's existence, and will do anything in their power to convince you that it's real. In some regions of the world people can spend their entire life coming across no contrary social inputs.

You can live in cities where there might be 20 - 30 churches, some very grandiose, and in Catholic versions very striking imagery. In these same cities there might be biblical quotes on a number of street corners.

The bible is the world's best selling book and at least half of the world's population believe that it's a holy text.

On Facebook you can follow religious pages that will promote religion day after day.

So for the adult it's not just a matter of intellect, and interacting with the world like a child, it's a matter of religion being a normalized part of our culture. Religion is even more pernicious than Santa because to most of the world it is real. I get that you consider yourself an activist of sorts with regards to religion, but the constant insinuation that the religious are just dumb feels off the mark to me.

I think it's more the case that those who can see beyond culture are very smart. Where those who fall for culture are just normal people.

I get what you are saying and I don't disagree with the gist of it. I can certainly see myself being the same way given the same inputs. It's why I don't try to change the way people think anymore than I try to change how tall they are. Would I be happier if I woke up tomorrow and observed that everyone had acquired sufficient knowledge to conclude that there aren't invisible people living in the sky? Certainly.

One of my favorite sayings is "You can't use knowledge you don't have." That is the explanation for why kids pretty much believe anything they're told, because they don't know any better. They simply lack enough knowledge to come to the informed conclusion that santa is a dog and pony show. Not until they muster sufficient knowledge does santa belief change.

How are adults that worship invisible creatures living in the sky any different? What exactly would allow them to "see beyond culture" if not knowledge? In short, they lack the intellect - lack the intellect for whatever reason. Those reasons are many and varied but in the end it's an intellectual shortcoming. And aren't very smart people normal people too?

That kid who believes in santa is living in his santa culture. Then it changes. The kid was just as normal before he stopped believing as he was after, but he's smarter because he has knowledge that allowed him to make an important change.

That same kid has no doubt heard about gods and religion too. Think for a second how many kids' lives would be different if told that some people believe gods are real and some don't. And that it's fine to be either way. Pretty important bit of acquired knowledge wouldn't you say? But how many kids have that experience? Pretty close to zero?

And that's why kids continue to believe in invisible people living in the sky. It's okay to stop believing in santa but it isn't okay to stop believing in invisible people living in the sky. That understanding, that knowledge, is denied in that culture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Poltergeists are apparently able to move physical objects yet I'd say they don't have a physical body (according to the tradition). Perhaps an analogy is a player moving objects around in a game of "The Sims". The player's body isn't part of the "physical" world of The Sims.

The player isn't external to the sims world. The player is an integral part. Without the player not much would happen in Sims. Just like a poltergeist would be, if they existed.

That definition is incoherent.

Wikipedia says: "The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature"

In the game "The Sims" the player could be considered supernatural.... "the laws of nature" would involve objects and sims within the game.

It's not my definition. It's THE definition.

I quoted the definition of supernatural from Wikipedia....
Another definition:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural
"of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal"

I think that covers poltergeists...

The laws of nature is whatever happens in the world. No matter the source. ANYTHING that actually happens in the world is always natural. EVERYTHING

Anything beyond the laws of nature is stuff that doesn't happen. That's what being beyond the laws of nature means. It's non-events

 

[excreationist]

The player isn't external to the sims world. The player is an integral part. Without the player not much would happen in Sims. Just like a poltergeist would be, if they existed.

The laws of nature is whatever happens in the world. No matter the source. ANYTHING that actually happens in the world is always natural. EVERYTHING

Anything beyond the laws of nature is stuff that doesn't happen. That's what being beyond the laws of nature means. It's non-events

What about the "zero player game", Conway's Game of Life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

The "game" only has 3 (or 4) rules.... that could be called the laws of nature...

But if a player intervened, it could turn any of the cells on or off... I'd say the regular 3 rules are the regular laws of nature... and when the player is involved that involves special additional rules....

The player could intelligently design machines... e.g. Conway's Game of Life emulated in Conway's Game of Life....

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8[/YOUTUBE]

Though normally there would just be the initial conditions then it runs by itself.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The player isn't external to the sims world. The player is an integral part. Without the player not much would happen in Sims. Just like a poltergeist would be, if they existed.

The laws of nature is whatever happens in the world. No matter the source. ANYTHING that actually happens in the world is always natural. EVERYTHING

Anything beyond the laws of nature is stuff that doesn't happen. That's what being beyond the laws of nature means. It's non-events

What about the "zero player game", Conway's Game of Life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

The "game" only has 3 (or 4) rules.... that could be called the laws of nature...

But if a player intervened, it could turn any of the cells on or off... I'd say the regular 3 rules are the regular laws of nature... and when the player is involved that involves special additional rules....

The player could intelligently design machines... e.g. Conway's Game of Life emulated in Conway's Game of Life....

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8[/YOUTUBE]

Though normally there would just be the initial conditions then it runs by itself.

In the game of life, if the player does anything that has ANY influence on the game what so ever, then the player action is added to the list of rules for the game.

You seem confused about what the laws of nature is. The laws of nature isn't like a set of rules, like for a board game. Where you can cheat and win the game even though you shouldn't have, according to the rules. The laws of nature are descriptive. Every recorded event in nature has been catalogued and then we have, after the fact, searched for patterns in the data. They're only made into a law of nature if they NEVER deviate. If any exception to the rule, no matter how small, would be recorded this law of nature would be thrown out.

The way the laws of nature are formulated any action made by a god would instantly be included into the laws of nature. It would be equated with nature.

It's not like there's a conspiracy of scientists trying to cover up acts of God. They're just collecting data and looking at the results. Maybe it really is the Greek god Helios that makes the sun rise in the morning. And the way that looks is the way scientific data looks.

 

[excreationist]

In the game of life, if the player does anything that has ANY influence on the game what so ever, then the player action is added to the list of rules for the game.....

There are three regular rules (involving zero players)... there could be a huge number of rules related to the player. I thought that the rules could be distinguished between those two types....

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the game of life, if the player does anything that has ANY influence on the game what so ever, then the player action is added to the list of rules for the game.....

There are three regular rules (involving zero players)... there could be a huge number of rules related to the player. I thought that the rules could be distinguished between those two types....

The whole point of the game of life is to show how evolution works (without the need of a God). The rules just simulate the natural mechanics of evolution. So you couldn't possibly have used a worse example to prove acts of God in the world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

there could be a huge number of rules related to the player. I thought that the rules could be distinguished between those two types....

But any given square just counts neighbors.

It doesn't behave differently if it's a player-added/-subtracted life or one spawned/killed off by the previous generation's math.

So the rules are best expressed from the square's point of view.

Life spawns here if there are ___ neighbors when calculating the next generation.
Life continues here if there are ___ neighbors when calculating the next generation.
Life ends here if there are ___ neighbors when calculating the next generation.
Life spawns here if player says so.
Life ends here if player says so.

Not really much else needed to express the game.
But the player's actions must be part of the one set of rules for the game.

 

[excreationist]

The whole point of the game of life is to show how evolution works (without the need of a God). The rules just simulate the natural mechanics of evolution. So you couldn't possibly have used a worse example to prove acts of God in the world.

In the game of life the initial conditions are usually intelligently designed. If they are random it behaves randomly then usually gets stuck
e.g.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzMQY9Etb4Q[/YOUTUBE]

If intelligently designed it can involve the game of life simulating the game of life (see post #195) - an intelligent designer can take advantage of their knowledge of still lifes, oscillators, and spaceships....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

I'm not aware of evolution simulating/emulating itself (like that example of the game of life emulating the game of life)

Perhaps the game of life could also be about chemistry and machines/factories like living cells.... (random vs purposeful machine-like structures) I think it is about "emergence"...