• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why YEC can seem plausible

DBT said:
I'm not sure in which universe a flat earth would or could be possible. The ancient Greeks worked out the shape of the Earth over two thousand years ago.
Click to expand...
When I was hospital early in 2019 I briefly thought it might be possible within a simulation and it is a test of God's word (the Truth) vs worldly "wisdom". It would also require that NASA is part of a big conspiracy. Anyway now I believe there are no good reasons to believe in the flat earth - unless you believe the Bible is 100% True.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
......If an organism does not make an accurate observation of it's environment that is different from an organism that makes an accurate observation of its environment...
Click to expand...
I think what is more important is how many indoctrinated children you can have, and if you can wipe out or convert those with other beliefs. This can be related to Islam. Beliefs can have survival value, and aren't necessarily True (like the belief in Heaven and hell). This is about "memes".
 
excreationist said:
DBT said:
I'm not sure in which universe a flat earth would or could be possible. The ancient Greeks worked out the shape of the Earth over two thousand years ago.
Click to expand...
When I was hospital early in 2019 I briefly thought it might be possible within a simulation and it is a test of God's word (the Truth) vs worldly "wisdom". It would also require that NASA is part of a big conspiracy. Anyway now I believe there are no good reasons to believe in the flat earth - unless you believe the Bible is 100% True.
Click to expand...

If our universe is a simulation, it has a set of rules upon where the simulation of 'matter/energy' has well defined rules and principles....and it is the principles of mass and gravity that simply do not permit a flat object with the mass of the Earth to form or maintain the shape of a disk. It would quickly collapse into a sphere...unless the very same rules the system operates, gravity, mass, etc, are suspended in this instance. Which creates a whole lot of other problems.
 
DBT said:
.....it is the principles of mass and gravity that simply do not permit a flat object with the mass of the Earth to form or maintain the shape of a disk. It would quickly collapse into a sphere...unless the very same rules the system operates, gravity, mass, etc, are suspended in this instance. Which creates a whole lot of other problems.
Click to expand...
Some flat earthers I've come across don't believe in gravity. They believe the reason why objects fall is that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards.
 
excreationist said:
DBT said:
.....it is the principles of mass and gravity that simply do not permit a flat object with the mass of the Earth to form or maintain the shape of a disk. It would quickly collapse into a sphere...unless the very same rules the system operates, gravity, mass, etc, are suspended in this instance. Which creates a whole lot of other problems.
Click to expand...
Some flat earthers I've come across don't believe in gravity. They believe the reason why objects fall is that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards.
Click to expand...

What they believe is false, orbital mechanics, the sun, moon, other planets, stars, time zones, horizon curvature, etc, etc, falsifies their belief.
 
DBT said:
What they believe is false, orbital mechanics, the sun, moon, other planets, stars, time zones, horizon curvature, etc, etc, falsifies their belief.
Click to expand...
Yes ultimately it is false - but they have counter-arguments for many of these things.

About orbital mechanics - an alternative is this:
4b3e31fdc3748865de25b798fd975973.png

Flat earthers now have explanations for time zones....

About how popular this is starting to become:



"there's no way you can get a spinning heliocentric globe out of anything in the Bible"
 
Yes, indeed, a flat earth conference attended to by members from around the globe.

Who, while flying to the conference could have looked out the window of their aircraft and seen the curvature of the earth with their own eyes.
 
The Flat Earth Society members probably believe that the rest of society is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that they themselves are immune....being select members of 'in the know' group, and all.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Why is it being called Young Earth Creationism when it's just Anti-scientific Creationism?
Click to expand...

Because there is also Old Earth Creationism and even Theistic Evolution that are also anti-science, but differ in what scientific ideas they reject, and whether they accept everything in the Bible as literal truth or cherry pick which parts that want to take literally and which they will arbitrarily say are meant metaphorically.
 
DBT said:
The Flat Earth Society members probably believe that the rest of society is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that they themselves are immune....being select members of 'in the know' group, and all.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how a cult operates?
 
with the focus of discussion wanting to be about what "can seem" plausible, the answer is anything whatsoever that a person desires, that person can find "plausible" TO THEM.

A magician can make it seem like things are able to simply disappear before your eyes
A Politician can make it seem like his opponent is trying to kill you through legislation
A Preacher can make it seem like your very thoughts can hurt others
A Teacher can make it seem like the study of a skill is attainable
A Carpenter can make it seem like two pieces of wood were carved from one.


what "can seem" plausible is not a measure of anything.
 
No, it's not a matter of popularity. The notion of plausibility or reasonableness is very much a part of probability, logic and rational thinking.

For example, we employ the concept of plausibility when we consider whether the premiss of an argument is more plausible than its negation. Or which is the best (most plausible) explanation for a set of known facts.

It's 'plausible' that the universe began to exist.
Is this claim more or less plausible than its negation that the universe did not begin to exist - has always existed.

It's 'plausible' that the coming into existence of the universe was caused.
Is this claim more or less plausible than its negation - that the universe spontaneously popped into existence.

It's plausible that the cause of the universe coming into existence was intentional (volition).
Is this claim more or less plausible than its negation - that the advent of the universe was simultaneously unintentional and inevitable. (In which case, why did that unintentional inevitable first cause of the universe wait so long to cause the universe?)
 
Related to plausibility and reasonableness is the concept of properly basic belief..

"...In classical foundationalism, beliefs are held to be properly basic if they are either self-evident axioms, or evident to the senses."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

It's plausible that we and all reality are just a figment of someone else's (brain in a vat) imagination. It's plausible that yesterday didn't actually happen.
But are these claims more plausible than their negation. We have a properly basic belief that reality is really real and that we think therefore we are.
 
Lion IRC said:
No, it's not a matter of popularity. The notion of plausibility or reasonableness is very much a part of probability, logic and rational thinking.

For example, we employ the concept of plausibility when we consider whether the premiss of an argument is more plausible than its negation. Or which is the best (most plausible) explanation for a set of known facts.....
Click to expand...
Ok. BTW I found it interesting that earlier you said this:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...seem-plausible&p=755199&viewfull=1#post755199
Lion IRC said:
The young earth creationist has to invoke more miracles than the old earth creationist.
But both views are still more plausible than the non-theistic alternative.
Click to expand...
 
Yep.
And I have asked many young earthers why they want to make such an intellectually heavy rod for their own back when old earth creationism much easier to defend, AND...
old/young earthism has nothing to do with salvation (soteriology) or fidelity to Jesus Christ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom